Employees Cannot Be Denied Higher Pension Due To Employer's Fault; EPFO Must Independently Verify Claims: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that employees cannot be denied pension benefits merely due to the failure of the employer to furnish the requisite records. The Court observed that in such cases, the EPFO is required to examine all available material and undertake independent verification before rejecting the claim.

Justice Amit Borkar was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation rejecting applications for pension on higher wages. The petitioners had rendered long years of service and claimed entitlement under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, asserting that contributions had been made on higher wages and that they had exercised the joint option pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court. Their applications were rejected on the ground that the employers failed to furnish documents such as Forms 3A, 6A and other supporting records. The petitioners contended that the obligation to maintain and submit such records lies upon the employer and that employees cannot be penalised for failure of the employer or deficiencies in record maintenance by the authority.

The Court examined the scheme of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 and noted that documents such as Form 6A and challans are required to be maintained and furnished by the employer, and the employee has no control over their preparation or production. It held that fastening the consequence of non-production of such documents upon the employee would be unjust.

The Court observed that where the employee has produced other material indicating contributions to higher wages, such as Form 3A and EPF account statements, the authority must consider the claim on the basis of such material. It held that the absence of one set of documents cannot be treated as fatal if the factum of contribution can be gathered from other reliable sources.

The Court further held that in cases where the employer does not cooperate or fails to produce records, the EPFO cannot reject the claim at that stage. It must undertake its own inquiry by examining internal records, electronic data, past returns, contribution history and other available material to verify the claim.

“In a situation where the employer does not fully cooperate, the authority cannot close the matter at that stage. It must proceed further and make its own inquiry from available sources… Rejection should not be the immediate outcome. It must come only after all possible avenues of verification are exhausted…,” the Court observed.

The Court highlighted that the scheme is beneficial in nature; the approach of the authority must be realistic and not technical, particularly in relation to older records where strict insistence on specific documents may lead to unjust denial of benefits.

The Court found that the impugned orders rejected the claims solely on the ground of non-production of certain documents without examining other material or undertaking verification from available records. It held that such an approach was not sustainable.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the EPFO for fresh consideration.

Case Title: Durga Srinivas Kallakuri & Ors. vs. Employees' Provident Fund Organisation & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 4826 of 2026 & connected matters]

Case Title: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 188

Click Here To Read/Download Order