Delhi High Court – Orders
Ram Prasad Sah vs Delhi Building And Other Construction … on 24 July, 2025
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~93
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12241/2024
RAM PRASAD SAH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chirayu Jain, Advocate.
versus
DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
BOARD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhay Dixit, Ms. Risha Dixit and
Mr. Harish Plaha, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 24.07.2025
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 08.07.2024 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;
c. Pass orders as to costs in favour of the Petitioner”
3. The facts, in brief, are that the Petitioner is a building/construction worker
who had registered with the Respondent Board with old registration No.
007170353905 and new registration No. 51380000059038. The Petitioner on
14.02.2022 had renewed his membership with the Respondent Board which was
extended till 14.02.2023. The Petitioner attained the age of 60 years and retired from
the services on 31.12.2022 pursuant to which he applied for release of pension under
Rule 273 of the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation ofThis 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 31/07/2025 at 21:28:00
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 08.07.2024 holding that the Petitioner’s labour card was not registered
for 2019-2022. The Respondent Board vide its rejection order further observed that
he did not complete three years of continuous membership before the date of
superannuation and hence did not fulfil 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.
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 conflict1
decided on 02.05.2025 in W.P.(C) 758/2024This 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 31/07/2025 at 21:28:00
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 gua 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 Welfare Board , Sarla Devi v DBOCWWB,
and in Munni Lal v DBOCWWB 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. , 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 dateThis 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 31/07/2025 at 21:28:00
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 qualifying period, i.e.,
an eligibility period for availing pension by a building worker. The only
provision concerning qualifying period/eligibility criteria for payment in
pension is found in Rule 272 which provides 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. As noted above, it is not disputed that the
petitioner turned 60 on 31.12.2021 and by that time, he had already
worked as a construction worker for more than one year. Therefore, based
on these facts, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of pension.
9. In view of the present factual position and considering the import of the
abovenoted 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).”
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 31/07/2025 at 21:28:00
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 31.12.2022
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.
9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
10. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA, J
JULY 24, 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 31/07/2025 at 21:28:00