The Bombay High Court has held that an employee cannot be denied a pension on the ground of higher wages simply because their employer failed to maintain or produce the statutory records required for verification by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO).
Justice Amit Borkar, in a ruling on Writ Petition No. 632 of 2026, set aside an EPFO rejection order and directed reconsideration of the petitioner’s higher pension claim, calling the authority’s approach “inflexible” and “legally unsustainable.” The case was filed by Kiran Rajaram Jadhav, a retired pharmacist who served Haffkine Bio-Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited for approximately 37 years before superannuation in January 2024.
After exercising the joint option under the Supreme Court’s directions on higher pension, his application was rejected by the EPFO in March 2025 on the ground that his employer had not furnished Form 6A and monthly challans for the period prior to March 2010.
The court found this reasoning fundamentally flawed. Form 6A, it observed, is a consolidated annual return maintained entirely by the employer; an employee has neither access to nor control over such records. Penalising the employee for the employer’s administrative lapse, the bench held, was contrary to both law and the purpose of pension as a social welfare benefit.
“The employee’s role is limited. He works, earns wages, and contribution is deducted. He does not maintain statutory returns. That responsibility lies with the employer. If the employer has failed in maintaining records or producing them, then the consequence cannot be shifted upon the employee,” Justice Borkar observed.
The court directed the EPFO to reconsider the claim using all available material, including Form 3A, EPF account statements, and employer confirmations, without rejecting it solely for want of Form 6A or challans. The exercise is to be completed within eight weeks, with consequential benefits to follow within a further eight weeks if the petitioner is found entitled.
The ruling is significant for the large volume of EPS-95 higher pension claims currently pending with the EPFO, many of which have been held up by similar documentation disputes rooted in employer non-compliance rather than employee fault.
