Liberty granted to petitioners to seek interest on pension arrears through departmental representation and speaking order.

Several petitioners filed contempt petitions against the respondent seeking the grant of pension in accordance with the judgment dated 23rd February 2023 in Dulari Devi v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board & Anr.

While the respondent had already paid the principal pension amount, the interest component remained unpaid.

The respondent filed a reply disputing the petitioners' entitlement to any interest.

Consequently, the petitioners sought liberty to submit formal representations to the respondent regarding the interest claim.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension principal.

2. Whether the court should direct the respondent to consider and decide upon the petitioners' claim for interest through a formal administrative process.

The court's directions were predicated on the principles of administrative law and natural justice, specifically the right of a party to have a claim adjudicated through a "speaking order".

The court adhered to the precedent set in Dulari Devi v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board & Anr. (W.P.(C) 13969/2022) regarding pension entitlements for construction workers.

The court also applied procedural law regarding the disposal of contempt petitions when substantial compliance (payment of principal) is met but ancillary disputes (interest) remain.

The court noted that while the primary obligation of paying the principal pension amount had been fulfilled by the respondent, a specific dispute persisted regarding the interest component.

Rather than adjudicating the exact interest amount in a contempt jurisdiction, the Court utilized its discretion to allow a departmental remedy first. By granting liberty to the petitioners to file representations, the court ensured that the respondent would be legally obligated to evaluate the claim for interest under the framework of the initial Dulari Devi judgment.

The court mandated a time-bound resolution and a "speaking order" to ensure transparency and to provide the petitioners with a clear basis for further legal challenges if aggrieved.

The respondent was directed to decide these representations expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, via a speaking order to be communicated to the petitioners’ counsel via email. The Court further held that if the petitioners remain aggrieved by the respondent's subsequent order, they retain the liberty to seek further legal remedies.