KIRAN RAJARAM JADHAV V. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (EPFO) & ANR 2026:BHC-AS:14389:

DATE: 26.03.2026

COURT: High Court of Bombay

BENCH: Justice Amit Borkar

FACTS:

The petitioner, a pharmacist, joined service with respondent No. 2 on 4 May 1987 and rendered continuous, unblemished service of approximately 37 years until his superannuation on 31 January 2024. During his tenure, he received two pay-scale upgradations and made regular provident fund contributions on his actual wages. After the Supreme Court judgment dated 4 November 2022 in Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B., he exercised the joint option under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 and submitted an online application on 29 September 2023 seeking pension on higher wages, along with all requisite documents including the certified joint option form and his complete EPF account statement. Respondent No. 1 (Assistant Pension Commissioner) forwarded the application to the employer (respondent No. 2) for verification of records, including Form 6A and monthly challans.

The employer submitted Form 3A for certain periods and informed the authority that Form 6A and challans for the period prior to March 2010 were not available due to transition to online systems. By the impugned order dated 28 March 2025, respondent No. 1 rejected the petitioner’s claim for higher pension solely on the ground that Form 6A and monthly challans had not been produced by the employer, rendering verification of contributions on higher wages impossible. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that he could not be penalised for the employer’s failure to maintain or produce statutory records.

ISSUES:

The core issue was whether the Assistant Pension Commissioner could reject an employee’s legitimate claim for pension on higher wages solely on the ground of non-production of Form 6A and monthly challans by the employer, when other reliable records such as Form 3A, EPF account statements, and the joint option application were available on record, and whether such rejection was sustainable when the employee had no control over the employer’s statutory records.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition. It quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 28 March 2025 passed by the Assistant Pension Commissioner and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Court directed the authority to decide the petitioner’s claim for higher pension within eight weeks by taking into account all available material on record and not to reject the claim solely on the ground of non-production of Form 6A or challans if the entitlement could otherwise be verified from the existing records.

The Court held that Form 6A is a statutory record required to be maintained and submitted by the employer, not by the employee. An employee has neither access to nor control over such records in the ordinary course of service. Penalising the petitioner for the non-production of documents that were solely within the employer’s custody would be unjust and contrary to the beneficial and social welfare object of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The Bench observed that Form 3A and the EPF account statements already on record contain substantially the same particulars as Form 6A and provide a reliable basis for verification of contributions made on higher wages. The employer had itself admitted in its clarification dated 29 January 2025 that Form 3A had been forwarded and that certain records were unavailable due to transition to online systems, an administrative lapse for which the employee could not be made to suffer.

The Court emphasised that pension is not a matter of discretion or bounty but a right earned through long and continuous service. Once the foundational facts of continuous service, deduction of contributions on actual wages, and timely exercise of the joint option are established, the statutory authority is under an obligation to make a reasonable and practical effort to verify the claim rather than rejecting it outright on technical grounds. The authority was expected to examine the cumulative material, including the joint option form, EPF account history, and the employer’s own submissions, and, if necessary, call for further clarification from the employer. The impugned order reflected a narrow and inflexible approach that gave undue importance to the absence of one document while ignoring the totality of evidence. Such an approach defeats the welfare purpose of the pension scheme and cannot be sustained. The Court accordingly set aside the rejection and directed fresh consideration within the stipulated timeline.

ANALYSIS:

The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant ruling protecting the pensionary rights of retired employees in higher pension claims under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The Court set aside the mechanical rejection of the petitioner’s application for pension on higher wages, which was based solely on the non-production of Form 6A and monthly challans by the employer. The judgment rightly emphasises that an employee cannot be penalised for the failure of the employer or the EPFO to maintain or produce statutory records that are exclusively within their custody and control. The Court highlighted that the petitioner had rendered 37 years of unblemished service, made regular contributions on actual wages, and duly exercised the joint option after the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunil Kumar B. case. Rejecting such a claim on technical grounds defeats the very object of this beneficial social welfare legislation.

This decision reinforces the principle that pension is a vested right earned through long service, not a discretionary bounty. The High Court adopted a pragmatic and employee-friendly approach by directing the Assistant Pension Commissioner to reconsider the claim on the basis of all available material, including Form 3A, EPF account statements, and the employer’s own clarification, rather than insisting on a single document. The ruling makes it clear that when foundational facts such as continuous service and deduction of contributions are established, the authorities have a duty to make reasonable efforts for verification instead of outright rejection. By remanding the matter with clear directions and timelines, the Court has struck a balance between procedural requirements and substantive justice, ensuring that administrative lapses do not result in denial of legitimate pension benefits to retired employees.