The entitlement to pension benefits for construction workers under the Act and Rules should be determined based on their registration and eligibility, rather than discrepancies in supporting documents like Aadhar card.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The hearing in this case has been done through hybrid mode.

2. In the present case, the Petitioner- K Murugan is aggrieved by the rejection of his application dated 21st April, 2017 by the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board (hereinafter ‘the Board’) for the release of his pension and, thus, prays for the release of the pension along with arrears with interest.

Brief Facts

3. The case of the Petitioner is that he is a construction worker who had obtained his registration with the Board in March, 2012. He had also been issued the Registration Card bearing registration number 6120321899. At that time, in the registration card his recorded age was shown as 57 years. His family is shown as consisting of his wife and one son. The Petitioner has deposited the membership fee on four occasions, i.e., March, 2012, March, 2013, March 2014 and March 2015.

4. The registration card of the Petitioner showing the deposits made by him are extracted as under:-

A perusal of the above registration card shows that the next subscription was due in February, 2016.

5. The Petitioner made an application for pension on 21st April, 2017, and submitted along with the said application, his original labour card and copies of his bank passbook, Aadhar card and photographs along with the requisite affidavit. The Board has also received the said application.

6. However, upon considering the application for pension submitted by the Petitioner, the Board issued a deficiency letter dated 9th July, 2020. The deficiency raised in the said letter is extracted as under:-

“On perusal of the Pension file of K Murugan, it was found that membership in Labour card is not live; Labour Card is live only from March 2012 to February 2016. However, when a labour retires, he should be a member of the Board. Hence, as per the documents, retirement of the Worker is on 1-1-2017. Therefore, K Murugan should present valid registration from March 2016 to 2017 because at the time of retirement, it is a must that the worker should be a member of the Board.”

7. Thus, the deficiency which was raised by the Board was that at the time when the Petitioner attain 60 years of age, he was not a member of the Board and thus, his registration was not valid.

8. The said deficiency letter issued by the Board was replied to by the Petitioner stating that he was registered as a beneficiary since 2012 and got his registration as a member with the Board renewed each year. He accepted that he had attained the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years before March 2015 and had paid renewal fees up to the year 2015. In the reply, it is also highlighted on behalf of the Petitioner that even if the age of superannuation is attained on 1st January, 2017 by virtue of the membership being valid till 2016, he would be a registered member of the Board and eligible for all the applicable benefits.

9. Thereafter, the Board issued a second deficiency letter dated 9th July, 2020 to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has also made repeated representations to the Board and its concerned officials. But the petitioner's pension application was still not approved. Ld. Counsel representing the Petitioner, has relied upon the various WhatsApp messages sent to the Board as also emails.

10. In view of the repeated representations, the Board considered the matter and rejected the Petitioner’s application for pension on 2nd September, 2021 in the following terms:-

“This office has sent letter number 326 on date 04-06- 2020, letter number 344 on date 09-07-2020 and lette