The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory duty of the respondent to disburse pension to construction workers and the entitlement to interest on the delayed amount of pension.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)--The petitioner, who is a construction worker, duly registered with the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board (hereinafter referred to as `the Board'), has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent Board to release the pension payable to her under the Building and Other Construction Workers, Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') with interest @18% per annum.

2. When the present petition was taken up for preliminary consideration on 18.11.2022, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 had sought time to obtain instructions. Today, he submits that an order has been passed by the respondent on 06.01.2023 sanctioning pension in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.02.2021 i.e., the date when she became eligible for receiving pension as per rules.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while not denying that pension has now been sanctioned in the petitioner's favour, submits that the respondent having delayed the sanctioning of pension in the petitioner's favour despite her having become eligible to receive the same w.e.f. 01.02.2021, ought to pay interest to her @18% per annum on the delayed amount of pension.

4. In support of his plea that the interest ought to be paid on the delayed amount of pension, he places reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in "State of Kerala and Others vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair", (1985) 1 SCC 429; "S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana and Another", (2008) 3 SCC 44; and "D.D. Tewari (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Others", (2014) 8 SCC 894.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 opposes the grant of any interest by contending that even though the petitioner has been found to be eligible to receive pension w.e.f. 01.02.2021, she had submitted all the requisite documents only by way of her reply dated 05.08.2022, and that too in response to the respondent's deficiency letter dated 06.07.2022. He submits that once the requisite documents were received from petitioner on 05.08.2022, expeditious steps were taken by the respondent to sanction pension in her favour. He, therefore, contends that the respondent cannot be faulted for the delay, if any, in sanctioning of the pension in favour of the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner's prayer for grant of interest be rejected.

6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that while there is no dispute that the petitioner was entitled to receive pension w.e.f. 01.02.2021, it is also an admitted position that the requisite documents for sanction of pension were submitted by her only on 05.08.2022. In these circumstances, the respondent is justified in urging that pension could not be sanctioned in the petitioner's favour without her submitting the requisite documents and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any inordinate delay on it's part in sanctioning the pension payable to the petitioner. Even though, both, the Act and the Rules are silent regarding the time period within which the pension must be sanctioned, in my view, the respondent, which is enjoined with a statutory duty to disburse pension in favour of these construction workers, who play a crucial role in the building of the society, ought to take expeditious steps to ensure that pension is released to them at the earliest.

7. In the present case, the petitioner submitted all the requisite documents on 05.08.2022 and therefore, even if a period of 45 days is taken as a reasonable period for the respondent to have processed the petitioner's application for grant of pension, there is still a delay of more than three months in sanctioning the pension in her favour. Learned counsel for the respondent, except for stating that the respondent is dealing with 16 lakhs registered building and construction workers, is unable to provide any justification for this delay. The pens