A teacher was credited with 8 months of service but was denied a pension recalculation: the court partially sided with the Pension Fund

The Lviv District Administrative Court reviewed case No. 380/1432/26 filed by a pensioner against the Main Department of the Pension Fund in the Lviv region concerning the inclusion of a work period in the insurance record, pension recalculation, and application of pension indexation coefficients. The court partially satisfied the claim, recognizing the Pension Fund's inaction in not including a certain work period in the insurance record as unlawful.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff is registered with the Pension Fund authorities and receives an old-age pension according to the Law "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance." After being granted the pension, she continued working as a primary school teacher under a fixed-term employment contract.

The plaintiff argued that the Pension Fund unjustifiably did not include the work period from January 1 to August 29, 2025, in her insurance record. Additionally, she considered the Pension Fund's actions regarding pension indexation from 2020 to 2025 unlawful, claiming that the legally established coefficients for increasing the average wage indicator used to calculate pensions were not taken into account during indexation. Therefore, the plaintiff asked the court to oblige the Pension Fund to include the disputed work period in the insurance record, perform the corresponding pension recalculation, and pay the underpaid amounts.

The Pension Fund opposed the claim. The defendant stated that the right to recalculate the pension considering additional insurance periods after a previous recalculation arises only after acquiring at least 24 months of insurance record or no earlier than two years after the previous pension recalculation. The defendant also emphasized that the plaintiff's pension indexation from 2019 to 2025 was conducted in accordance with legal requirements, applying all prescribed coefficients for increasing the average wage indicator.

Court's position on pension indexation

The court analyzed the provisions of the Law "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance," Law No. 2148-VIII on pension increases, and Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine resolutions that annually set pension indexation coefficients.

The court established that the plaintiff's pension was assigned before the 2017 pension reform; therefore, after the recalculation from October 1, 2017, the average wage indicator for 2014–2016 in the amount of UAH 3764.40 was lawfully applied for pension calculation.

The court concluded that from 2019 to 2025, the Pension Fund consistently applied all coefficients for increasing the average wage indicator as prescribed by government resolutions: 1.17 in 2019, 1.11 in 2020, 1.11 in 2021, 1.14 in 2022, 1.197 in 2023, 1.0796 in 2024, and 1.115 in 2025. Thus, the claim about the absence of pension indexation was not confirmed during the court proceedings.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's reference to the Supreme Court's legal position expressed in the ruling dated April 16, 2025, in case No. 200/5836/24. The court noted that the Supreme Court's conclusion concerned pensions assigned after January 1, 2018, whereas in this case, the pension was assigned much earlier. Therefore, the legal relations in the cases are not identical, and the cited legal position is not applicable.

Accordingly, the court concluded that pension calculation and payment were carried out in accordance with current legislation, and the claims regarding pension indexation and recalculation were unfounded.

Court's position on inclusion of insurance record

Examining the case materials, the court found that the plaintiff's employment record book contains proper entries about her work as a primary school teacher from August 22, 2023, to August 29, 2025.

The court noted that according to Article 62 of the Law "On Pension Provision," the main document confirming work experience is the employment record book. Additional documents may be required only if the employment record book or relevant entries are absent.

Since records of employment were present, the court concluded that the Pension Fund unjustifiably did not include the work period from January 1 to August 29, 2025, in the plaintiff's insurance record. Therefore, the court recognized the Pension Fund's inaction as unlawful and obliged it to include the specified period in the insurance record.

However, the court denied the claim for pension recalculation considering this work period. The court noted that the previous pension recalculation for the plaintiff was conducted from February 1, 2025. According to part four of Article 42 of the Law "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance," if after such recalculation a person acquires less than 24 months of insurance record, a new recalculation is possible no earlier than two years after the previous one. Therefore, the right to the corresponding recalculation for the plaintiff will arise no earlier than January 31, 2027.

Conclusions

The court concluded that the Pension Fund lawfully conducted the plaintiff's pension indexation from 2019 to 2025 and correctly applied the average wage indicators and corresponding increase coefficients. In this part, the claims were dismissed.

At the same time, the court recognized the inaction of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Lviv Region regarding the non-inclusion of the work period from January 1 to August 29, 2025, in the insurance record as unlawful and obliged to include this period in the plaintiff's insurance record.

The court denied the claims for pension recalculation and payment of the pension in the new amount.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.