Employees Can’t Be Penalised for Employer Lapses: Bombay HC Sets Aside EPFO Rejection of Higher Pension on Technical Grounds

The Bombay High Court has held that employees cannot be denied pension on higher wages merely due to non-availability of employer-side records such as statutory forms, emphasising that such technical deficiencies cannot defeat a legitimate claim under a beneficial social welfare scheme.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Amit Borkar allowed the writ petition and set aside the EPFO’s rejection order, directing reconsideration of the petitioner’s claim for higher pension based on available material such as EPF account statements, Form 3A, and employer confirmations, while holding that the claim cannot be rejected solely for want of Form 6A or challans.

The petitioner, a retired pharmacist who had rendered approximately 37 years of continuous service, approached the Court challenging the rejection of his application for pension on higher wages.

He contended that he had exercised the joint option pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions and had submitted all required documents, including his EPF account statements and joint option form.

His application, however, came to be rejected by the EPFO on the ground that the employer had failed to furnish Form 6A and certain challans necessary for verification of contributions.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned rejection was fundamentally flawed as it imposed on the employee the burden of producing documents that are statutorily required to be maintained by the employer. It was submitted that Form 6A is a consolidated annual return filed by the employer, and an employee has neither access to nor control over such records. The petitioner emphasised that penalising him for the employer’s inability to produce such documents would be contrary to both law and fairness.

It was further contended that the EPFO had failed to consider alternative and equally reliable evidence already on record. The petitioner pointed out that Form 3A, which had been submitted, contains detailed year-wise contribution data, including wages and contributions made by both employer and employee.

Additionally, the EPF account statements reflected continuous contributions on actual wages exceeding the statutory ceiling. These documents, it was argued, substantially captured the same information as Form 6A and were sufficient to verify the claim.

The petitioner also highlighted that he had submitted a certified joint option form along with an undertaking agreeing to deposit any differential contribution, if required. It was argued that once such foundational facts were established, continuous service, regular deductions, and submission of the joint option, the EPFO was under a duty to assess the claim holistically rather than reject it on technical grounds.

It was further submitted that the EPFO, being a statutory authority implementing a social welfare legislation, is obligated to act reasonably and facilitate verification, especially where the employer has defaulted in maintaining records.

The petitioner stressed that the employer had admitted to administrative lapses, including non-availability of certain records due to transition to online systems, and such lapses could not be used to deny accrued pensionary rights.

Furthermore, it was argued that the EPFO ought to have explored alternative modes of verification, including salary records, bank statements reflecting deductions, and internal EPFO data, instead of adopting a rigid and inflexible approach. The petitioner relied on precedents to contend that technical deficiencies in documentation should not defeat substantive entitlements under welfare schemes.

On the other hand, the EPFO maintained that Form 6A and challans were essential for verifying contributions and that, in their absence, the claim could not be processed. The employer, however, supported the petitioner’s case, confirming that contribution details and Form 3A had been furnished and that wage data was available.

The Court, after considering the submissions, found the approach of the EPFO to be “inflexible” and inconsistent with the object of pension schemes.

It observed that Form 6A is maintained by the employer and remains outside the employee’s control, and therefore, its absence cannot be used to defeat an otherwise valid claim.

The Court noted that the petitioner had demonstrated continuous service, regular contributions, and timely exercise of the joint option.

Significantly, the bench accepted the petitioner’s contention regarding the evidentiary value of Form 3A and EPF account statements, observing that these documents contain substantial details of contributions and could form the basis for verification.

It held that the EPFO’s insistence on a single form, to the exclusion of other reliable material, amounted to prioritising form over substance.

The Court further held that pension is a social welfare benefit and must be interpreted in a manner that advances its purpose; Denial of such benefit due to gaps in employer records, over which the employee has no control, would be unjust and contrary to the scheme of the law.

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

It directed the authority to examine all available material, including Form 3A, EPF account statements, and employer clarifications, and to complete the exercise within a stipulated timeframe, without rejecting the claim solely on the ground of missing documents.

Appearances: Adv. Satyam Surana, for the petitioner. Adv. Payoja Gandhi, for respondent no. 1; Adv. N.R. Patankar with Mr. Prabhakar M. Jadhav i/b Ms. Tanaya Patankar, for respondent no. 2.

Case Title: Kiran Rajaram Jadhav v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr.

Bench: Justice Amit Borkar

Date of Judgment: 26.03.2026