Writ courts should not determine disputed pension-contribution claims requiring factual inquiry.

The petitioner worked for M/s. Jagannath Enterprise from 1 December 2006 to 14 December 2017, after which his provident fund and pension-fund service were transferred to his account with M/s. Randstad India Private Limited.

He worked for Randstad until 14 May 2020 and alleged that he rendered an additional three months’ service at its request.

The EPFO reported that his provident fund accumulation had been settled, and that he was receiving a monthly pension of ₹1,083 under a PPO issued with effect from 14 May 2018.

The petitioner sought a higher pension and arrears, alleging discrepancies in contributions and pension calculation.

1. Whether the petitioner’s claims concerning employer contributions, pension calculation and arrears could be determined in a writ petition under Article 226 where they involved disputed questions of fact.

2. Whether the petitioner could be precluded from pursuing those claims before an appropriate authority under the applicable provident-fund and pension framework.

The Court considered the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, together with the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.

It stated that disputes concerning pension shortfalls, calculation errors and arrears may be taken to the appropriate authority under the 1952 Act, which may inquire into the matter and determine the correct entitlement in accordance with law.

The Court also noted the EPFO’s reliance on Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B, (2023) 12 SCC 701, concerning the pension scheme and contributions, but did not apply or decide that precedent’s effect on the petitioner’s entitlement.

The Court found that the claims involved disputed factual questions, including whether the employers had made the proper contributions and whether the petitioner was owed salary for the alleged additional service from June to August 2020.

In the Court’s view, those disputes could not be resolved in the writ proceedings without contemporaneous supporting documents.

It therefore did not determine whether the pension had been correctly calculated, and left the petitioner to pursue the pension and arrears issues before the appropriate authority.

It expressly preserved the petitioner’s right to approach an appropriate forum, directing that any such proceedings be decided in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the Court’s observations.

Any interim orders, if any, were vacated.