Delhi High Court – Orders
Ram Bilash Sharma vs Delhi Builing And Other Construction … on 18 August, 2025
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~97
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12391/2025& CM APPL. 50556/2025
RAM BILASH SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rudrakshi Deo, Mr.
Chirayu Jain, Advs.
versus
DELHI BUILING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKER
WELFARE BOARD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhay Dixit, Mr. Harish Plaha,
Ms. Kanika Chopra, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 18.08.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. By way of the present petitioner, the petitioner seeks the following
prayers:-
“A. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or
direction in the nature of a writ setting aside/quashing the (undated)
Impugned Rejection Order (ANNEXURE P-1);
B. Direct the Respondent Board to sanction the pension and release
the dues of the Petitioner with 10 per cent per annum from
31.12.2019 onwards amounting to Rs. 2,31,825/- (ANNEXURE P-
19);
C. Direct the Respondent to pay costs;
D. Pass any other order or direction as may be deemed fit.”
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. as 4090101799 and new registration no. as 51380000164064. The
Petitioner attained the age of 60 years and retired from services on 31.12.2020
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 21/08/2025 at 22:04:06
pursuant to which he applied for release of pension under the 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 06.06.2025 for not fulfilling the conditions prescribed
under Rule 273 BOCW Rules.
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 undper
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
1
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 21/08/2025 at 22:04:06
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 Welfare
Board2 , Sarla Devi v DBOCWWB3, and in Munni Lal v
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 21/08/2025 at 22:04:06
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
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 21/08/2025 at 22:04:06
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 of 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).”
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
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 21/08/2025 at 22:04:06
directions passed by this Hon’ble Court in Dulari Devi (Supra).
8. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.
AMIT SHARMA, J
AUGUST 18, 2025/sp
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 21/08/2025 at 22:04:06
[ad_1]
Source link