Workers' welfare claims must be decided based on established precedents with time-bound verification and interest.

The court dealt with a batch of seven writ petitions filed by construction workers against the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board.

Petitioners in three cases (W.P.(C) 6935/2026, 6984/2026, and 5336/2026) sought reliefs already adjudicated in prior Division Bench rulings.

Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5109/2026 sought relief based on separate precedent.

The remaining petitioners in W.P.(C) 5112/2026, 5714/2026, and 5346/2026 sought directions for the Board to decide their pending claim applications, asserting full eligibility under statutory rules.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to benefits and reliefs in light of the precedents set by the Division Bench in Dulari Devi and National Campaign Committee?

2. Whether the respondent Board should be directed to expedite the verification and disbursement of pending claim applications for eligible workers?

The court applied the precedent from Delhi Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board vs. Dulari Devi & Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine Del 3148), which governs standard benefit claims for construction workers.

It relied on National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour vs. Delhi Building and other Construction Workers Board (2024 SCC OnLine Del 1257) regarding statutory eligibility.

Furthermore, it applied the principle from Rajo vs. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board and Anr. (2023 SCC OnLine Del 2185) regarding the entitlement to interest on delayed disbursements.

The court noted that the respondent Board conceded to the merits of several petitions, acknowledging they were covered by existing Division Bench judgments.

For the covered matters, the court found no reason to deviate from the established legal positions in Dulari Devi and National Campaign Committee.

Regarding the pending applications, the court accepted the respondent's submission that a physical verification process is a prerequisite for disbursement.

By integrating the rule from Rajo, the court determined that any delay in these disbursements necessitates the payment of admissible interest to ensure the workers are not prejudiced by administrative lag.

For the remaining petitions, the court directed the respondent to conclude the physical verification and disburse the necessary amounts within eight weeks.

The court further ordered that interest must be paid on these amounts as per the relevant rules and the judgment in Rajo. All petitions and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.