Liberty granted to petitioners to seek interest on pension arrears through representations to the respondent.

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

During the proceedings, it was submitted that the respondent had already paid the principal pension amounts to the petitioners.

The petitioners contended that the interest component on the delayed payments remained outstanding.

The respondent filed a reply disputing the liability to pay any interest.

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

2. Whether the Court should direct the respondent to consider representations for the grant of interest in a time-bound manner.

The court proceeded based on the directions established in the precedent Dulari Devi v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board & Anr. (W.P.(C) 13969/2022), which governs the entitlement of construction workers to pensionary benefits.

The court also applied general principles of administrative law requiring authorities to decide representations through speaking orders and in accordance with the law.

The Court observed that while the core grievance regarding the principal pension amount was settled, a dispute remained regarding the interest.

Rather than adjudicating the specific calculation or liability of interest in the contempt jurisdiction at this stage, the Court accepted the petitioners' request for liberty to file formal representations to the respondent.

The Court reasoned that the respondent must be given the first opportunity to decide the claim for interest "in accordance with law" and mandated a transparent process via a speaking order to ensure the petitioners' rights are protected.

The respondent was directed to decide these representations expeditiously, preferably within six weeks of receipt, by passing a speaking order. This order must be communicated to the petitioners via email. The Court further held that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the respondent's subsequent order, they maintain the liberty to seek further legal remedies.