Missing Records Cannot By Themselves Defeat Higher Pension Claims: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that an employee’s claim for pension on higher wages cannot be rejected merely because the employer fails to furnish every record sought by the EPFO, especially for older periods when records may be incomplete or maintained manually.

The Court said the authority must examine all available material, including Form 3A, EPF statements, contribution history and other corroborative evidence, and can reject the claim only after exhausting every reasonable avenue of verification.

Justice Amit Borkar delivered the judgment in a batch of writ petitions while quashing the impugned rejection orders dated 08.04.2025, 09.04.2025 and 04.12.2025.

"If the employer fails to respond or responds inadequately, the authority must then turn to its own records and verify what is already available. Thereafter, if gaps are still found, the authority should seek corroboration from other reliable documents such as the employee’s joint option, salary records, appointment details, wage slips, bank statements and prior communications of the employer. If upon such examination it appears that contributions on higher wages were in fact made and that the employee had exercised the option, then the authority should proceed to process the claim, subject to payment of any differential contribution and applicable interest. Rejection should not be the immediate outcome. It must come only after all possible avenues of verification are exhausted and a finding is recorded that the claim cannot be substantiated even on consideration of available material. Even in such a case, reasons must be clearly stated", the court observed.

The matters were remanded to the EPFO for fresh consideration within 12 weeks, with a clear direction that claims should not be denied solely for non-production of Form 6A, challans or similar records by the employer, particularly for the period prior to 2010.

The petitions arose out of substantially identical claims by retired employees seeking pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 on the basis of wages higher than the statutory ceiling.

The petitioners contended that they had exercised the requisite joint option and that contributions had been deducted and remitted on actual wages during service, but the EPFO rejected their applications on the ground that certain documents called from the establishments were not furnished.

The High Court found that this approach was too technical and inconsistent with the nature of the scheme, which is a beneficial social welfare measure meant to secure retirement income for employees who have contributed during service.

The Court underlined that the burden of maintaining and submitting statutory returns such as Form 6A and challans lies primarily on the employer, and the employee cannot be penalised for lapses in record-keeping or non-cooperation by the establishment.

It observed that insisting on a perfect set of documents in every case, especially for older claims where electronic record systems were not fully operational, would defeat the object of the pension scheme.

The judgment stressed that the real inquiry is whether the employee’s contribution on higher wages and the exercise of option can be established from the available material, not whether one particular document is missing.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court accepted that the EPFO is entitled to satisfy itself that the joint option was validly exercised and that contributions above the ceiling were in fact remitted. At the same time, it held that the authority must apply these requirements reasonably and realistically.

The Court noted that documents such as Form 3A, EPF account statements, joint option forms certified by the employer, salary records, wage slips, appointment details and other contemporaneous material may all be relevant in determining the claim.

Where an employer says that records have already been submitted earlier, the authority must verify its own records, including electronic data, past returns, member ledgers and passbook entries, rather than close the matter immediately, it was noted.

The judgment is significant because it frames a structured method for dealing with higher pension claims under the EPS where records are missing or incomplete; First, the EPFO must call for records from the employer and give reasonable opportunity; If the employer does not cooperate, the authority must independently check the records in its custody. If gaps still remain, it should look for corroboration from other reliable sources produced by the employee. Only after this exercise, and after recording a clear reasoned finding that the claim still cannot be substantiated, may the authority reject the application.

The Court specifically said that rejection should not be the immediate outcome merely because Form 6A, challans or similar documents are not available.

For many retired servicemen, the ruling has practical importance because higher pension claims are often stalled by missing historical records.

The Court’s reasoning recognises that employees may have worked for decades under employers whose records were not digitised, and that they should not lose pensionary benefits because the paper trail is incomplete.

By directing reconsideration on the basis of available material and by insisting on a reasoned speaking order, the judgment strengthens the evidentiary standard in a way that is both claimant-friendly and administratively workable.

The operative directions also require the EPFO to permit the petitioners to place additional material if needed, to consider the employer’s earlier communications, and to grant consequential pensionary benefits if the claims are substantiated, subject to payment of any differential contribution with applicable interest. 

Counsel for Petitioners: Adv. Satyam Surana; Counsel for Respondent EPFO: Adv. Payoja Gandhi with Adv. Devangi Manjrekar

Case Title: Durga Srinivas Kallakuri v. The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation and connected matters

Bench: Justice Amit Borkar

Date of Judgment: 18.04.2026