The Bombay High Court has held that 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.
The Court therefore quashed the orders rejecting the applications of the petitioners for grant of pension on higher wages, and remanded the matters to the EPFO (respondent authority) for fresh consideration of the petitioners’ applications for pension on higher wages, in accordance with law. The respondent shall, upon such reconsideration, not reject the claims solely on the ground of non-production of Form 6A, challans or similar records by the employer.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Borker observed that the main issue was whether an eligible employee could be denied pension on higher wages only because the employer did not respond or failed to place every document on record, even where the employee had made out a prima facie claim from other available material. This difficulty was more serious for periods prior to 2010, when online filing and electronic record transmission were not fully operational and many establishments maintained manual records.
The Bench stated that documents such as Form 6A, challans and related filings are part of the employer’s obligation, and the employee has no role in their preparation, preservation or submission. Therefore, lapses in production or maintenance of such records cannot be fastened upon the employee.
The Bench further observed that Form 3A, EPF account statements, the joint option form certified by the employer, and the employee’s undertaking to deposit differential contribution were relevant indicators of employment, wages drawn and contributions made. If those records showed deductions on higher wages and credited contributions, absence of Form 6A or certain challans could not be treated as fatal, because satisfaction regarding contribution could be gathered from multiple sources.
At the same time, the Bench accepted that EPFO was justified in insisting on fulfilment of the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court and EPFO circulars, particularly existence of a valid joint option and remittance of contributions on wages exceeding the statutory ceiling. However, the Bench held that those requirements must be applied reasonably and not by insisting on a perfect set of documents in every case, especially where old records are involved.
The Bench emphasized that the Employees’ Pension Scheme is a beneficial scheme intended to secure pensionary benefits to employees who contributed during service, and not to create hurdles that make it impossible for genuine claimants to succeed. A technical approach, according to the Bench, would defeat the object of the scheme.
Where the employer states that records were already submitted and may be available with EPFO, the authority is under a duty to verify its own records rather than reject the claim outright. In cases of non-cooperation by the employer, EPFO must examine its internal records, including electronic data, old physical returns, member ledgers, passbook entries, contribution history and Form 3A details, and then seek corroboration from other reliable documents if gaps remain, added the Bench.
Briefly, the petitions challenged the orders dated April 08, 2025, April 09, 2025 and December 04, 2025 whereby the EPFO rejected the petitioners’ applications for pension on higher wages under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. In the lead matter, the petitioner had served for about 35 years, superannuated on June 29, 2017, and claimed that he had exercised option under the pension scheme and that provident fund contributions had been regularly remitted on his behalf during service.
Pursuant to the online facility, the petitioner submitted his application along with the required particulars and asserted that details of contributions on higher wages were also furnished. Thereafter, EPFO sought documents from the employers, including proof of joint option under Paragraph 26(6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952, proof under the proviso to Paragraph 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, evidence of remittances on wages above the ceiling, and Forms 3A and 6A with challans.
The employer replied that the relevant records had already been submitted from time to time and were available with EPFO, and later reiterated that stand without furnishing the additional documents specifically called for. EPFO thereafter rejected the application on the ground that the required documents and records had not been submitted by the establishment/employer. The petitioner contended that Forms 3A, joint option declaration and supporting documents had already been submitted earlier, and that an employee could not be denied pension for lapses attributable to the employer or the authority.
Appearances:
Advocate Satyam Surana, for the Petitioner
Advocates Payoja Gandhi and Devangi Manjrekar, for the Respondent
