[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Halke vs Delhi Building And Other Construction … on 22 July, 2025
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~74
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10416/2025 & CM APPL. 43278/2025
HALKE .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chirayu Jain, Adv.
versus
DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKER
WELFARE BOARD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhay Dixit, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 22.07.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following prayers :-
a. Quash the impugned order dated 30.04.2021 passed by the
Respondent; and
b. Issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to sanction the
pension application of the Petitioner under the Building and Other
Construction Workers Act, 1996 with a direction to release the accrued
arrears with 12% interest per annum from the date of accrual
amounting to a total of Rs. 3,14,287.5/- (ANNEXURE P-5); and
c. Pass orders as to costs in favour of the Petitioner; and
d. Pass any other order or grant any other relief as it may deem fit. The
facts, in brief, are that the Petitioner is a building/construction worker,
is aggrieved by impugned order dated 30.09.2024 whereby his
application for pension under the Building and Other Construction
Works Act, 1996 has been rejected by the respondent due to non-
compliance of Section 14(2).
3. The facts, in brief, are that the Petitioner is a building/construction worker
who had registered with the initial registration No. 51380000003113 and he
continued to be a member till 05.11.2020. The Petitioner attained the age of 60 years
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2025 at 22:07:10
and retired from the services on 01.01.2019 pursuant to which he applied for release
of pension under Rule 273 of the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers
(Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 (hereafter
referred to as “BOCW Rules”).
4. The pension claim of the Petitioner was rejected by the Respondent Board
vide order dated 30.04.2021 on the ground that he had only completed 2 years of
registration as per his labor passbook and had not completed the minimum 3 years
of registration, thus, not fulfilling the eligibility conditions prescribed under Section
14(2) of the Building and Other Construction Works Act, 1996 (hereafter referred
to as “BOCW Act“).
5. It is pertinent to mention that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kishan Lal
v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Boards & Anr. 1 has observed
that:
“4. The short issue which rises for consideration is whether the
Petitioner, a construction worker, was entitled to pension under the
provisions of BOCW Act and the rules framed thereunder, i.e. i.e.
The Delhi Building and other Construction Workers (Regulation of
Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 (hereafter
referred to as “BOCW Rules”) . Section 22 (1) (b) of the BOCW Act
states that Board may make payment of pension to the beneficiaries
who have completed the age of sixty years. Rule 272 of the BOCW
Rules, 2002 talks of the eligibility for pension. It states that a
member of the Fund who has been working as a building worker for
not less than one year after the commencement of these Rules shall
on completion of sixty years of age be eligible for pension. On the
other hand, Section 14 deals with cessation as beneficiaries, with
Section 14(1) laying down the situations wherein the status of
beneficiary ceases to operate. Section 14(2) of the BOCW Act
provides that notwithstanding Section 14(1), if a person has been a
beneficiary for at least three years continuously immediately before
attaining the age of sixty years, he shall be eligible to get such
benefits as may be prescribed.
1
decided on 02.05.2025 in W.P.(C) 758/2024
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2025 at 22:07:10
5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dulari Devi v. Delhi
Building and Other Construction Workers Board & Anr , held that
there is no conflict between Section 14 of the Act and Rule 272 as
both pertain to different things. It was held that Section 14(2) merely
carves out an exception for conditions of cessation enumerated in
Section 14(1) and was an inclusionary provision, not an
exclusionary one. It was held that eligibility for pension was
determined by Rule 272. It held as follows:-
“44. Therefore, it is clear that Section 14 of the Act is
not prescribing the eligibility for a worker being
entitled to pension but it is providing for conditions
when a beneficiary ceases to be a beneficiary. A
reading of Sub-Section (2) of Section 14 of the Act
makes it very clear that the eligibility for benefits would
be „as may be prescribed‟. Further, Section 2(m) of
the Act mandates that „prescribing‟ shall be in terms
of the Rules made under the Act. Thus, cessation of
beneficiary status is governed by Section 14 of the Act
and eligibility for pension is governed by Rule 272 of
the Rules.
45. Accordingly, there is no conflict between these two
provisions as is being sought to be made out. Sub-
Section (2) of Section 14 of the Act is merely an
exception for the conditions of cessation as stipulated
in Sub- Section (1) of Section 14 of the Act and nothing
more. Any reading to the contrary would render either
Sub-Section (2) of Section 14 of the Act as superfluous
or Rule 272 of the Rules as otiose. Such interpretation
would therefore have to be avoided. In fact, a reading
of Sub-Section (2) of Section 14 of the Act makes it
abundantly clear that it is merely an exception to Sub-
Section (1) of Section 14 of the Act and is not
prescribing eligibility conditions for exclusion of
various benefits under the Act which are prescribed
specifically and separately qua each of the benefits
under the Rules.”
6. The abovementioned decision in Dulari Devi (Supra), was
challenged by the respondent by way of LPA 372/2023. During
the pendency of said LPA, Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in
Muliya vs. Delhi Building and other Construction Workers
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2025 at 22:07:10
Welfare Board , Sarla Devi v DBOCWWB, and in Munni Lal v
DBOCWWB4 also granted similar reliefs while relying on the
decision in Dulari Devi (Supra).
7. The aforesaid issue has now been settled by a Division Bench
of this Court in Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers
Board v.Dulari Devi & Anr.5,wherein the legal position
regarding the rejection of a pension application on the ground
that the worker was not registered for a continuous period of
three years, as required under Section 14(2) of the Act was
considered and clarified. The Court observed that:
“18. As is evident, the stipulated eligibility criteria of
having been a beneficiary for at least three (03) years
preceding the date when the beneficiary completes 60
years of age cannot apply to specific benefits which are
the subject matter of Clauses (a) to (g) of Sub-Section (1)
of Section 22. Pension is one such specific benefit,
provided in Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 22,
and cannot be controlled by the eligibility criteria
provided in sub-Section (2) of Section 14.
18.1 In our opinion, the provision can only be construed
as eligibility criteria for which power is vested in the
Welfare Board under Clause (h) of Sub Section (1) of
Section 22. This is a provision that confers power on the
Welfare Board to make provisions and improvements of
such other welfare measures and facilities which are not
alluded to Clauses (a) to (g) of sub Section (1) of Section
22.
19. The eligibility criteria concerning pensions are
expressly provided in Rule 272 of BOCW Rules. The said
provision, in no uncertain terms, states that a member of
the fund who is a building worker would be eligible for a
pension on reaching 60 years of age if he has worked for
a period of not less than one year.
20. To our minds, there is no provision in the BOCW Act
which provides for a qualifying period, i.e., an eligibility
period for availing pension by a building worker. The only
provision concerning qualifying period/eligibility criteria,
as noted above, is found in Rule 272….”
8. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid decision, it is clear that
there is no provision in the BOCW Act which provides for a
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2025 at 22:07:10
qualifying period, i.e., an eligibility period for availing pension
by a building worker. The only provision concerning qualifying
period/eligibility criteria for
9. In view of the present factual position and considering the
import of the above noted decisions, the petition is allowed and
the impugned rejection order is set aside. The respondent is
directed to consider within six weeks, the petitioner’s case for
pension in terms of the directions issued in Dulari Devi (supra).”
6. Accordingly, having regard to the said decision, it is evident that the BOCW
Act has no provision which prescribes for a qualifying period for a building worker
to avail pension. Rule 272 of the Act is the only provision that provides for a
qualifying period as per which a member of the fund who had been working as a
building worker for not less than one year after the commencement of these rules,
shall on completion of sixty years of age be eligible for pension. As noted above, it
is a matter of record that the Petitioner attained the age of 60 years on 01.01.2019
and by that time, he had already worked as a construction worker for more than one
year. Thus, in view of the foregoing facts, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of
pension.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed and the
impugned rejection order is set aside. The Respondent is directed to consider within
six weeks, the petitioner’s case for pension in terms of the directions passed by this
Hon’ble Court in Dulari Devi (supra).
8. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.
AMIT SHARMA, J
JULY 22, 2025
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2025 at 22:07:10
[ad_2]
Source link