An employee cannot be denied pension benefits on higher wages due to an employer's failure to produce specific forms (like Form 6A) if the existence of the contribution and the joint option can be substantiated through other available evidence and the authority's internal records.

JUDGMENT:

1. Inasmuch as a common question of law arises for consideration and the factual matrix in all the present writ petitions is substantially identical, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order, so as to avoid repetition of facts.

2. By these writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner in each of the matters has called in question the legality and correctness of the orders dated 8 April 2025, 9 April 2025 and 4 December 2025 passed by the respondent authority, on the grounds set out therein.

3. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings, as set out in Writ Petition No. 4826 of 2026, may be stated thus. The petitioner, after completing his formal education, obtained a Diploma in Electrical Engineering in the year 1980. Thereafter, he entered service and was engaged in various capacities with different employers. It is the case of the petitioner that he remained in continuous and uninterrupted service, holding permanent positions, till he attained the age of superannuation on 29 June 2017. According to him, this tenure of about 35 years was rendered without any blemish. During the course of such employment, the petitioner was granted several pay revisions, transfers and promotional benefits from time to time. It is further stated that under Section 6-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 came to be notified by the Government of India with effect from 16 November 1995. The petitioner asserts that he satisfies all conditions for availing benefits under the said pension scheme and is therefore entitled to receive pension in accordance with its provisions.

4. It is the petitioner’s case that he had duly exercised his option under the said scheme and became a member of the respondent organisation, namely the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It is further contended that throughout his service tenure, contributions towards the provident fund were regularly made, and the respective employers deducted and remitted both the employer’s and employee’s contributions to the said organisation without default. The petitioner has further placed reliance upon the order dated 4 November 2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 8658–8659 of 2019 in the case of Employees Provident Fund Organisation and others versus Sunil Kumar B. and others, reported in 2022 INSC 1171, whereby directions were issued to the respondent organisation and the Union of India to permit eligible employees to exercise joint option for pension on higher wages exceeding the statutory ceiling of Rs.15,000/- per month.

5. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the respondent made available an online facility enabling submission of applications for exercise of such joint option. The petitioner accordingly submitted his application on 31 March 2023, bearing acknowledgment number 230331114801002255161. Along with the application, he submitted requisite documents and particulars as called for by the respondent. It is his case that details of contributions made on higher wages were also furnished. On this basis, the petitioner contends that he had a legitimate expectation that his pension would be computed on the basis of actual wages on which cont