Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Order Date: 29.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Samir Ahmed Khan, DOB 14.05.1960, former employee of Jagannath Enterprise (Kolkata) and Randstad India Private Limited (Chennai).
  • Respondents: Chairman, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) & others.
  • Service History: 12 years continuous service from 01.12.2006 to 14.12.2017 with Jagannath Enterprise (PF Account No. WB/PRB/42235/4). Transferred to Randstad India Private Limited on 15.12.2017, confirmed as Executive, served until resignation on 14.05.2020. Rendered additional three months of service from June 2020 to August 2020 at the request of Randstad.
  • PF Account Details:
  • Original PF Account: WB/PRB/42235/4 (joined 01.12.2006, exited 14.12.2017).
  • Transferred PF Account: TN/MAS/35791/2628634 (joined 15.12.2017, exited 14.05.2020).
  • Transfer of PF accumulation and pension fund from WB/PRB/42235/4 to TN/MAS/35791/2628634 recorded on 02.05.2019 (sanctioned amount Rs 1,71,003).
  • Contributions: Employer contributions for the period up to May 2020 were received; pension fund contributions up to May 2018. Employee ceases to be a pension fund member upon attaining age 58.
  • Settlement & Pension: PF accumulation settled for Rs 2,76,097 in October 2020. Pension sanctioned via PPO No. WBCAL00128723; monthly pension drawn is Rs 1,083 since 14.05.2018.
  • Petitioner’s Grievances: Alleged that employer failed to make its statutory EPF/EPS contributions, resulting in a meagre pension; claimed entitlement to at least Rs 7,000 per month based on 12 years of service and extra three months.
  • Respondents’ Position: Submitted affidavit citing the above PF records, confirming contributions made by the establishments and the settlement amount.
  • Legal Submissions: Counsel for petitioner argued non‑payment of proper pension and arrears; counsel for EPFO relied on a precedent (Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B, 2023 SCC 701) stating pension depends on accumulated contributions.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the dispute involves factual questions regarding employer contribution and arrears for extra service, which cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction (Article 226) without contemporaneous documentary evidence.
  • The petition (WPA No. 3572 of 2023) is disposed of without any order as to costs.
  • The petitioner is directed to approach the appropriate EPF/EPS authority for resolution of pension calculation and arrear claims.
  • Interim orders, if any, are vacated; connected applications are also disposed of.
  • Parties may obtain certified copies of the judgment upon compliance with legal formalities.

Topics: Pension, Employees' Provident Fund, Writ Petition