Bombay High Court: In a batch of petitions challenging the rejection of applications for pension on higher wages under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 (Scheme), a Single Judge Bench of Amit Borkar, J., underscored that employees cannot be penalised for lapses attributable to their employers or the authority itself. The Court noted that the petitioners had exercised their option, contributed on actual wages, and furnished supporting documents, yet their claims were rejected solely for non-production of Form 6A and certain challans. Holding that such rejection was arbitrary and contrary to the beneficial nature of the Scheme, the Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the authority to reconsider the claims. All writ petitions were accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.
Background
The dispute arose from applications submitted by employees seeking pension on higher wages. Petitioners had rendered long service, contributed to provident fund on actual wages, and exercised joint option under the Scheme. They submitted applications through the online facility introduced pursuant to Supreme Court directions, along with Form 3A, Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) account statements, and joint option forms certified by employers.
The respondent authority rejected the claims on the ground that employers failed to furnish Form 6A and acknowledged challans. Petitioners contended that statutory obligation to maintain and submit such records lies with employers, and employees cannot be burdened with consequences of non-production. They argued that denial of pension despite fulfilling eligibility conditions was arbitrary.
However, the respondents contended that submission of joint option along with proof of remittance of contributions on wages exceeding the statutory ceiling was mandatory, and that despite reminders, employers failed to furnish acknowledged copies of Forms 3A and 6A.
Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioner has relied upon Form 3A, the EPF account statement, the joint option form certified by the employer, and also furnished an undertaking to deposit any differential contribution. These documents are indicators of the employment, the wages drawn, and the contributions made. It was also noted that Form 3A reflects yearly contribution details, and the EPF account statement shows the running account of deposits. If these records indicate that deductions were made on higher wages and contributions were credited, then they form a basis to examine the claim. Therefore, in such a situation, the absence of one document, namely, Form 6A or certain challans, cannot be treated as fatal.
The Court emphasised that the authority must be satisfied that there was a valid joint option exercised in accordance with law and that the contributions on wages exceeding the statutory ceiling were remitted, as these are essential requirements and cannot be diluted. However, the Court observed that the manner in which these requirements are applied must be reasonable, and the authority cannot insist upon a perfect set of documents in every case, particularly when dealing with old records where such perfection may not be possible, since the test is of satisfaction based on available material.
The Court further highlighted that it must also be kept in mind that the Scheme in question is a beneficial legislation and its purpose is to secure pensionary benefits to employees who have contributed during their service. The Court noted that it is not intended to create hurdles which make it impossible for a genuine claimant to succeed, and if the approach of the authority is technical, it may result in denial of benefits to persons who have fulfilled their obligations. Such an interpretation would defeat the object of the Scheme. Therefore, while compliance with conditions is necessary, the same must be assessed in a realistic manner.
The Court highlighted that 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, which would include examination of its internal records such as electronic data, old physical returns, member ledgers, passbook entries, contribution history, and Form 3A details. The Court noted that these materials can provide a picture regarding the contributions made by or on behalf of the employee, and the authority must then arrive at a conclusion based on this material.
The Court emphasised that this approach becomes necessary because the employee cannot be made to suffer for defaults of the employer or for deficiencies in record maintenance by the authority itself. The system of maintaining records is intended to safeguard the interests of employees, and it cannot be used as a ground to deny benefits. Particularly in cases relating to earlier periods, insistence on production of original records in a particular format may lead to unjust results. The Court noted that the authority must therefore adopt a rational method of verification, asking whether there is evidence of contribution, whether the employment is established, and whether the overall material supports the claim.
The Court further observed that upon reconsideration, the authority must verify its own records, consider employer communications, and assess all corroborative documents. If contributions on higher wages were made and joint option exercised, claims must be processed subject to payment of any differential contribution with interest.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned orders dated 8 April 2025, 9 April 2025, and 4 December 2025, remanded the matters for fresh consideration, and directed that claims should not be rejected solely on the ground of non-production of Form 6A or similar records. The authority was instructed to complete reconsideration within twelve weeks, pass a reasoned order, and grant pensionary benefits if entitlement is established.
Consequently, all the writ petitions were allowed, with no order as to costs.
[Durga Srinivas Kallakuri v. EPFO, Writ Petition No. 4826 of 2026, decided on 18-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Satyam Surana
For the Respondents: Payoja Gandhi with Devangi Manjrekar
