[ad_1]
Construction workers cannot be denied pension entitlement “only due to excessive technical issues” or requirements such as “production of original MR slips or serial number of notary records,” the Delhi High Court decided.
A single panel of Justice Prathiba Singh, in her order of May 29, noted that “a large number of construction workers are either illiterate or even semi-illiterate and come from a rural background”.
The court noted: “Delhi (Citizen’s Right to Timely Delivery of Services) Act, 2011, Entry 372, defines 30 days as the period within which a pension application must be processed…within 60 days. Thus, it is clear that once a worker applies Construction of a pension request, taking into account the financial situation of these workers, the said application must be processed without any delay.Therefore, there is no justification for not processing the petitioner’s pension request.The petitioner in this petition fulfilled the conditions stipulated by law and the rules for exemption from pension and other benefits …”
The remark came in an appeal by a construction worker who had applied to the Delhi Construction Workers and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board for the release of her pension as per Rule 372 of the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers (Employment Regulations and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002. A court directed one of The HC, in another instance on May 20, 2020, to address pending requests with the Board for the release of pension benefits. Subsequently, the applicant and other beneficiaries received shortage letters regarding their pension applications. they retirement benefits They have not been released.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s application for a pension had been denied by the Board on the grounds that she was not a member of the Board at the date of retirement. Subsequently, the Board required the builder to submit some documents including ‘Bank Slip, MR Slip or any other relevant document under which renewal with contribution of Rs 212/- was made by the petitioner on 23rd December 2014 and to provide the serial numbers of the records checked them by a notary.”
The worker then transferred to the HC in a judicial petition in 2022, which was decided by the Single Judge on April 18 last year with a directive to the Board to pass appropriate orders in relation to her claim for pension benefits. With the Council still not taking action on her application, the petitioner has conveyed the Commission on Human Rights requesting that the order of 18 April 2022 be recalled with direction to the Council to decide her case within two weeks.
Thus the Board issued a second rejection letter to the petitioner. A new application was then filed to sanction and release her pension from 1 February 2019 with interest applied.
In adjudicating the petition, the High Commissioner noted that the petitioner had been registered with the Council since September 2009 and, at the time of retirement, had been working as a bricklayer for over a year and had paid her contribution for the entire period. “The fact that the contribution period was extended beyond her retirement or that membership was renewed after the retirement age cannot lead to the denial of pension benefits,” the court said.
“Under these circumstances and keeping in mind the general objective of the BOCW Act, the Delhi (Right of a Citizen to the Timely Delivery of Services) Act 2011 as well as the order in Rajo (above), the pension applicable to the petitioner shall be disbursed with benefit at a rate of 6% from 6 February 2022 by 1 July 2023,” directive of the Commission on Human Rights. It also awarded costs of Rs 25,000 to the petitioner to be paid to her within eight weeks, after she indicated that she had to undergo a “second round of litigation” and was “deprived of her due pension for a considerably long period”.
However, the High Commissioner made it clear that “the costs and payment of pension as an applicable interest also shall be subject to the results of the appeal of the Council in LPA 372/2023 titled Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Council v Dulari Devi and Anr.”
[ad_2]
