Summary of this article
The Bombay High Court has said that pension authorities must adopt a fair and practical approach when verifying higher pension claims. It found EPFO acted unfairly by insisting only on Form 6A and challans, despite undisputed long service and continuous contributions. The court set aside the rejection and asked EPFO to reassess the case using all relevant records available
A higher pension under the employee pension scheme (EPS) is available only to eligible subscribers, but when the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) rejected one such pension claim by an employee for lack of records on the part of the employer, the Bombay High Court gave a significant ruling recently. Justice Amit Borkar ruled that a retired employee cannot be denied a higher pension just because their employer failed to maintain some specific records.
The court emphasised that approving a pension is not a favour, but it’s a retiree’s right, earned through decades of service, and quashed the rejection order from the EPFO.
Case Background
The petitioner served as a Pharmacist at Haffkine Bio-Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited for approximately 37 years, from 1987 to 2024. During this long span of service, the employer deducted his salary regularly toward contributions to the provident fund. When the Supreme Court gave a directive regarding the option of a higher pension in 2022, the petitioner applied for the higher pension option. However, EPFO rejected his application in March 2025, on the basis that the employer hadn’t provided monthly challans and Form 6A for the period before March 2010. According to the EPFO, these documents were essential to verify his contributions.
Arguments
The petitioner argued that it is the employer’s responsibility to maintain Form 6A, and the employee has no access to the records. Petitioner’s counsel contended that the required information is also available in the EPF statements and Form 3A, and thus, EPFO could have used those documents for verification.
The EPFO (respondent 1) maintained that Form 6A and challans need to be checked mandatorily because, without these documents, checking the authenticity of contributions and verification of higher administrative charges is impossible.
Notably, the employer (respondent 2) admitted that some records were missing due to their transition to the online systems.
Court Observation
The court observed that EPFO adopted a narrow approach in information verification. Justice Borkar noted that there was no dispute that the employee served for 37 years, contributed to the EPFO for the entire period of service.
The court noted, “The rejection is founded mainly on non-production of Form 6A and monthly challans. Therefore, the real question is not whether the petitioner served long enough or whether he made the joint option application. The real question is whether his claim can be defeated only because some employer side records were not produced in the form demanded by respondent No.1 (EPFO).”
It further noted that the Form 3A contains year-wise contribution details, whereas Form 6A shows a consolidated version, but all the information is available in Form 3A as well.
“Verification can be done by examining different kinds of records. It is not confined to one form alone. EPF records, Form 3A, employer submissions, and account statements are all relevant. If one document is missing, it does not make the entire claim unverifiable. The authority was expected to examine whether, on the basis of the total material, the contribution could be reasonably verified.”
The court said, “The rejection shows that the authority has not exercised its power in a fair manner.”
Court Judgment
The court noted that the law related to pensions is not meant to create hurdles. It is to secure retirement. If pension is denied to the genuine employee only because of missing employer records, then such an interpretation cannot be accepted.
It quashed the rejection order and sent the matter back to the EPFO for fresh consideration within eight weeks, using all available records and extended the consequential benefits to the retiree.
