Authorities must consider fresh pension-revision representations on their merits and in accordance with law.

The petitioners sought revision of their monthly pensions, with arrears from their respective retirement dates, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in EPFO v. Sunil Kumar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1521.

They stated that they had previously submitted a representation but sought permission to submit a fresh one because the earlier representation had been made long before.

The second respondent’s Standing Counsel submitted that the representation would be considered on its merits and in accordance with law.

Whether the petitioners should be permitted to submit a fresh representation seeking pension revision.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider that representation and pass appropriate orders within a specified period.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

The Court directed that the petitioners’ representation be considered “on its own merits and in accordance with law”.

Although the petitioners relied on EPFO v. Sunil Kumar, the Court did not determine the precedent’s application or decide the petitioners’ substantive entitlement to revised pension.

The Court addressed the limited request for consideration of a fresh representation, rather than adjudicating the pension claim on its merits.

In view of the petitioners’ request and the second respondent’s submission that the representation would be considered according to law, the Court permitted a fresh representation and set a timeframe for its consideration.

The respondents were directed to consider it on its merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks of receiving it.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

The Court did not grant or determine the requested pension revision or arrears.