Welfare Board Directed to Decide Representations for Interest on Delayed Pension Disadvantaged by Initial Rejection

The petitioners, who are construction workers, filed writ petitions seeking the release of pension benefits from the Respondent Board.

On 17.02.2026, the court disposed of the petitions with certain directions.

Pursuant to those directions, the Respondent reconsidered the claims and released the principal pension amounts to the petitioners.

However, the petitioners raised a lingering grievance regarding the non-payment of interest on the delayed pension payments, calculated from the date of their initial applications.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension benefits from the date of their initial application.

2. What procedure should be followed for the adjudication of the claim for interest post-disposal of the substantive claim.

The court applied the general administrative law principle of "Reasoned Orders" and the doctrine of "Appropriate Remedy."

The court’s direction is rooted in the Board's statutory obligation under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, to provide benefits in a timely manner.

When a monetary claim is partially satisfied, the remaining technical claim (interest) should first be addressed via a formal representation to the administrative authority for a "reasoned order".

The court noted that the primary relief (the principal pension amount) had already been granted following its previous intervention.

Regarding the secondary relief of interest, the court did not adjudicate the merits of the delay or the specific rate of interest. Instead, it bridged the gap between the petitioners’ demand and the administrative process by directing the petitioners to file a formal representation.

The court reasoned that the Respondent Board must first exercise its quasi-judicial function by passing a reasoned order "in accordance with law" before the court can further intervene.

This ensures that the administrative remedy is exhausted while preserving the petitioners' right to judicial review if the outcome is unsatisfactory.

The Respondent Board was ordered to consider the representation and pass a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible.

The court held that no further orders were required at this stage but granted the petitioners liberty to approach the court again if they are aggrieved by the Respondent’s eventual decision on the interest claim.