[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kiran Rajaram Jadhav vs The Employees Provident Fund ... on 26 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:14389
wp632-26-J.doc
+AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 632 OF 2026
Kiran Rajaram Jadhav,
Aged about 59 years,
Residing at Address:
Room No.401, Building No.272,
Shree Vinayak CHS, RSC 26,
Nr. Bank of Maharashtra,
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
GANESH
Charkop Sector 1, Kandivali West,
ATUL
GANESH KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date:
2026.03.26
Mumbai -400 067 ... Petitioner
12:14:18
+0530
V/s.
1. The Employees Provident Fund
Organisation (EPFO)
through The Assistant PF
Commissioner, Regional Office, - Dadar
Having Office at:
Haffkine Bio - 341, Bhavishya Nidhi
Bhawan, Bandra (E), Mumbai -400 051.
2. Haffkine Bio- Pharmaceutical
Corporation Limited
(A Government of Maharashtra
Undertaking) Through its Managing
Director, Having Office at
Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited
Acharya Donde Marg, Parel,
Mumbai- 400 012. ... Respondents
Mr. Satyam Surana, for the petitioner.
Ms. Payoja Gandhi, for respondent no. 1.
Mrs. N.R. Patankar with Mr. Prabhakar M. Jadhav i/b
Ms. Tanaya Patankar, for respondent no. 2.
1
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 23:35:13 :::
wp632-26-J.doc
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : MARCH 12, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 26, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. By the present writ petition instituted under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the
legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 28 March
2025 passed by respondent No.1, namely the Assistant Pension
Commissioner, Regional Office, Dadar, Employees' Provident Fund
Organisation.
3. The factual background giving rise to the present petition, as
set out by the petitioner, is as follows. The petitioner acquired a
Diploma in Pharmacy in the year 1987 and came to be selected for
appointment to the post of Pharmacist with respondent No.2. The
petitioner joined service on 4 May 1987 and continued in
uninterrupted and permanent employment until attaining the age
of superannuation on 31 January 2024. The petitioner thus
rendered continuous service of approximately 37 years, which is
stated to be unblemished. During the tenure of his employment
with respondent No.2, the petitioner was granted two pay scale
upgradations, firstly on 20 January 2000 and thereafter on 30 July
2014. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of Section 6-A of
the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952, the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 came into force with
effect from 16 November 1995. The petitioner asserts that he is
wp632-26-J.doc
eligible and entitled to avail the benefits under the said Scheme.
Accordingly, he exercised his option and became a member of the
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation in accordance with the
prescribed procedure. The petitioner was allotted EPF No.
MH/15257/1025 and Member ID MHBAN00152570000001025.
Throughout his service, the petitioner made regular contributions
to the provident fund, and respondent No.2 duly deducted and
remitted both employer's and employee's contributions to the
statutory authority.
4. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment and
order dated 4 November 2022 passed by the Supreme Court in
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 8658-8659 of 2019 in the case
of Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and Others vs. Sunil
Kumar B. and Others, wherein directions were issued to
respondent No.1, in coordination with the Government of India, to
consider applications of eligible employees for exercise of joint
options for pension on higher wages exceeding the prescribed
ceiling limit of Rs.15,000. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1
introduced an online facility enabling eligible members to submit
applications for exercise of such joint option for pension on actual
wages exceeding the statutory ceiling. In pursuance thereof, the
petitioner submitted an online application on 29 September 2023
seeking pension on higher wages. It is the petitioner's case that
along with the said application, all requisite documents and
particulars, as mandated by the Employees' Provident Fund
Organisation, were duly furnished. The petitioner also annexed the
complete statement of his provident fund account reflecting
wp632-26-J.doc
contributions made over the course of his employment. According
to the petitioner, having contributed on actual wages, he had a
legitimate expectation that his pensionary benefits would be
computed accordingly on the basis of higher wages.
5. It appears that thereafter, by communication dated 14 May
2024, respondent No.1 forwarded the petitioner's application to
respondent No.2 employer for the purpose of seeking verification
and submission of certain requisite records, in accordance with the
guidelines issued from time to time. The documents sought from
the employer included proof of joint option under paragraph 26(6)
of the EPF Scheme, 1952 duly verified by the employer; proof of
joint option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the
Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995; evidence of provident fund
contributions on wages exceeding the prescribed ceiling of
Rs.5,000 and Rs.6,500; proof of pension fund contributions on
higher wages; any written refusal by the competent authority of
EPFO in respect of such remittances; as well as statutory forms
such as Forms 3A and 6A, along with challans evidencing
remittance of administrative charges on higher wages. In response
to the aforesaid communication, respondent No.2 addressed a
clarification dated 29 January 2025 to respondent No.1. In the
said communication, respondent No.2 stated that pursuant to the
judgment of the Supreme Court dated 4 November 2022, a total of
92 employees had submitted applications for higher pension. It
was further stated that in respect of 35 applicants, queries were
received regarding submission of Form 3A, and accordingly, Forms
3A for the period from April 1995 to March 2011 were being
wp632-26-J.doc
furnished. It was also indicated that Forms 3A for the period
subsequent to April 2011 were not available on account of
transition to online systems. Significantly, the said communication
did not enclose or address the other documents sought by
respondent No.1 and primarily rested on the unavailability of
records.
6. Upon consideration of the material, respondent No.1, by
order dated 28 March 2025, rejected the petitioner's application
for pension on higher wages. The rejection was founded on the
ground that the employer had failed to submit Form 6A and other
requisite records for the period prior to March 2010. It was further
observed that Form 6A and monthly challans were not available in
the office records, and that such documents are essential for
verification of annual contribution details. In the absence of Form
6A, the authenticity of contributions on higher wages, as claimed
in the joint application, could not be verified. It was also noted
that in the absence of challans, it was not possible to ascertain
whether administrative charges on higher wages had been duly
paid. The order records that despite sufficient opportunity, the
employer failed to produce the required documents. Being
aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way
of the present writ petition.
7. Mr. Surana learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has failed to properly
appreciate that the primary statutory obligation of maintaining
and producing Form 6A and other relevant records squarely rests
upon the employer, namely respondent No.2. It is urged that the
wp632-26-J.doc
petitioner, being an employee, cannot be penalised for non-
availability or non-production of such records. It is further
submitted that even assuming that certain documents were not
produced by the employer, respondent No.1 ought to have
examined the genuineness of the petitioner's claim on the basis of
other reliable material on record, such as Form 3A and the
statement of the petitioner's EPF account. According to the
petitioner, Form 6A is only a consolidated statement submitted by
the employer to the EPFO and substantially contains the same
particulars as reflected in Form 3A and the EPF account
statements. It is further submitted that a plain reading of the
clarification furnished by respondent No.2 would indicate that
Form 3A has in fact been annexed, which contains the details of
contributions made both by the petitioner and the employer. It is
contended that along with the application for joint option, the
petitioner had already submitted all necessary documents,
including the duly certified joint option form and EPF account
passbook, which were required to be considered by respondent
No.1. The petitioner has also furnished an undertaking agreeing to
deposit any differential amount, if so determined by respondent
No.1, through respondent No.2, along with applicable interest.
8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that the
burden of proving non-submission or non-maintenance of Form 6A
cannot be shifted upon the employee. It is contended that once the
employee establishes that contributions were in fact deducted from
wages exceeding the prescribed ceiling, the responsibility shifts
upon the employer and the statutory authority to reconcile their
wp632-26-J.doc
records or to adopt alternative modes of verification. It is urged
that respondent No.1, being a statutory authority entrusted with
implementation of a beneficial social welfare legislation, is under a
corresponding obligation to ensure compliance by the employer
with statutory requirements. In cases where the employer fails to
furnish records, respondent No.1 cannot reject the claim outright,
but is required to take reasonable steps to secure such records or
to verify the contributions through other available material. It is
further submitted that respondent No.2, as an employer, was
under a statutory as well as fiduciary duty to maintain complete
and accurate records of the petitioner's contributions and to
furnish the same to respondent No.1. The communication dated 29
January 2025 issued by respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that
records from April 2011 onwards are not available due to
transition to online systems, amounts to an admission of
administrative lapse. It is contended that such failure on the part
of the employer cannot operate to the prejudice of the petitioner.
The rejection of the petitioner's application, without exploring
alternative modes of verification such as salary records, bank
statements indicating deductions, or other available documents
including Form 3A, reflects lack of due diligence on the part of
respondent No.1 and results in denial of fair treatment.
9. It is submitted that the respondents are under a statutory
obligation to maintain proper and complete records of
contributions. Their inability to produce or retrieve such records
cannot be a valid ground to deny the petitioner his accrued
entitlement. It is contended that pension is not a matter of
wp632-26-J.doc
discretion but a right earned by an employee for long and
continuous service. The scheme is intended as a measure of social
security to ensure financial stability in post-retirement life. Denial
of such benefit on grounds beyond the control of the employee
results in serious prejudice and infringes the petitioner's right to
livelihood and dignity. In support of these submissions, learned
Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment
of the Allahabad High Court in Bechu Rai vs. State of U.P. & Others
decided on 31 March 2014, the judgment of the Rajasthan High
Court in Harishankar Sharma vs. Rajasthan Small Industries
Corporation Limited decided on 2 April 2025, and the judgment of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Suresh Kumar & Another
vs. State of Haryana & Others decided on 15 January 2024.
10. Mrs. N.R. Patankar, learned Advocate appearing for
respondent No.2 employer submits that in response to the
communication dated 14 May 2024 issued by respondent No.1,
calling upon respondent No.2 to furnish wage details for the entire
period of service commencing from 16 November 1995, the
employer has provided all available details of month-wise wages
on which provident fund contributions were made. It is submitted
that details of contributions made both by the employer and the
employee, along with interest wherever applicable, have been
furnished. It is further submitted that Form 3A has also been
provided, which contains relevant details including the employer
code and particulars of contributions. According to respondent
No.2, despite availability of sufficient material, respondent No.1
has failed to extend the benefit of higher pension to the petitioner.
wp632-26-J.doc
11. On the other hand, Ms. Payoja Gandhi learned Advocate
appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order and
submits that in absence of Form 6A and monthly challans, the
claim of the petitioner could not be duly verified. It is contended
that Form 6A constitutes an essential document for verification of
annual contributions and, in its absence, the authenticity of
contributions on higher wages as stated in the joint option
application cannot be established. It is further submitted that in
absence of challans, it is not possible to ascertain whether
administrative charges on higher wages have been duly paid by the
establishment. It is urged that despite sufficient opportunity having
been granted, the employer failed to produce the requisite
documents, and therefore, the petitioner's claim does not satisfy
the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment
dated 4 November 2022.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
12. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and
having gone through the material placed on record, this Court
finds that the controversy is a narrow one, though it carries serious
consequence for the petitioner. The petitioner has served
respondent No.2 for about 37 years. It is not in dispute that he was
a regular employee, that provident fund contributions were
deducted from his wages during service, and that he applied for
pension on higher wages after the directions of the Supreme Court
in the case of Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and Others
v. Sunil Kumar B. and Others. The rejection is founded mainly on
non-production of Form 6A and monthly challans. Therefore, the
wp632-26-J.doc
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.
13. This Court finds itself unable to accept the stand taken by
respondent No.1 in the inflexible manner in which it has been
adopted. The approach appears to proceed on a narrow reading of
record requirements without considering the practical position of
the employee. Form 6A is a statutory record which is required to
be maintained and submitted by the employer. It remains within
the control and custody of the establishment. An employee has
neither access to such record in ordinary course nor any authority
to maintain or preserve it. Therefore, expecting the petitioner to
produce such document is not in consonance with the scheme of
the statute. It must be seen that the petitioner has placed on
record that he was continuously in service, that deductions
towards provident fund were made from his wages, and that his
membership with the EPF Organisation was active throughout. He
has also exercised the joint option within time and submitted the
available documents. Once these foundational facts are shown, the
authority was required to consider the claim in a reasonable and
practical manner. The law relating to pension is not meant to
create hurdles. It is intended to secure a post-retirement benefit. If
the interpretation of the scheme results in denial to a genuine
employee only because of missing employer records, then such
interpretation cannot be accepted.
wp632-26-J.doc
14. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner regarding
similarity of particulars in Form 6A and Form 3A deserves careful
consideration. Form 3A contains year-wise contribution details. It
reflects wages and contributions. Form 6A is largely a consolidated
version prepared by the employer for submission. Therefore, when
Form 3A and account statements are available, the essential data is
already on record. The clarification given by respondent No.2 itself
shows that Form 3A was available at least for a substantial period
and was forwarded. It also admits that further records could not be
produced due to transition to online system. This position shows
that the deficiency is not because the petitioner failed to act, but
because the employer did not have complete records in one place.
Such difficulty cannot be used to defeat the claim.
15. The Court also notices that the petitioner had filed additional
supporting material along with his application. These include the
certified joint option form and EPF account details. These
documents are not insignificant. They are part of the official record
system itself. They reflect that the petitioner was a contributing
member. They show continuity of employment and deduction.
When all these documents are read together, they create a clear
picture of contribution and service. The authority was therefore
required to assess the claim on the basis of cumulative material.
The duty of a statutory authority in such matters is to verify and
decide, not to reject at the first instance of difficulty.
16. The contention that burden cannot be placed upon the
employee is also well-founded. The employee's role is limited. He
works, earns wages, and contribution is deducted. He does not
wp632-26-J.doc
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. Otherwise, it would result in denial of benefit to a
person who has no control over such records. Such an approach
would be unjust. Pension is not a matter of favour. It is a benefit
earned through long years of service.
17. The stand taken by respondent No.2 further supports the
petitioner. The employer has not disputed the petitioner's service.
It has not denied deduction of provident fund. On the contrary, it
has stated that wage details and Form 3A were forwarded. This
shows that the basic facts are accepted. The difficulty arises only in
relation to certain records not being available for later period. That
issue is between the employer and the authority. The employee
cannot be placed in disadvantage because of that. When the
employer itself accepts contribution details in substance, the
authority ought to proceed on that basis and verify further if
needed.
18. This Court also finds that the reasoning in the impugned
order proceeds on an incomplete understanding. It states that
without Form 6A and challans, verification is not possible.
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 total material the contribution could be reasonably
wp632-26-J.doc
verified. This exercise is not seen in the impugned order.
19. Similarly, the issue regarding non-availability of challans
cannot be treated as decisive. In a long service career, it is not
unusual that some records are not readily traceable. That by itself
cannot result in denial of pension. If there was any doubt, the
authority could have called for clarification or directed the
employer to reconcile records. It could have also taken steps to
verify from its own system. The rejection shows that the authority
has not exercised its power in a fair manner.
20. The principles emerging from the decisions relied upon by
the petitioner support this view. They recognise that technical
deficiencies on the part of the employer or record-keeping
authority should not defeat a legitimate claim of an employee.
Pension schemes are welfare measures. They are intended to
provide financial support after retirement. Therefore, they must be
applied in a manner that advances the object and not defeats it. A
person who has worked for several decades and contributed
regularly cannot be denied benefit because of gaps in official
records.
21. This Court also observes that the available material in the
present case was sufficient to at least undertake a proper
verification. The EPF account history, the Form 3A records, the
employer's communication, and the joint option application
together form a reliable basis. They are carry evidentiary value.
Ignoring them and focusing only on missing documents amounts
to giving importance to form over substance. Such approach is not
wp632-26-J.doc
acceptable in matters of social welfare.
22. In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that
the impugned order suffers from a serious error in approach. It
proceeds on the assumption that absence of certain employer-side
records is fatal. It overlooks the material placed by the petitioner
and the admissions made by the employer. The petitioner has done
whatever was possible for him to do. The remaining gap is on the
side of the employer and the authority. That gap cannot extinguish
the petitioner's entitlement.
23. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28 March 2025 is
liable to be set aside. The matter requires reconsideration.
Respondent No.1 shall re-examine the petitioner's claim by taking
into account all available records, including Form 3A, EPF account
details, the joint option application, and the employer's
clarification. If any further information is required, the same shall
be called from the employer and, if necessary, from the petitioner.
The exercise shall be completed within a reasonable period. The
petitioner shall not be denied the benefit solely on the ground of
non-production of Form 6A or challans, if the entitlement can
otherwise be established from the material on record.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons recorded
hereinabove, the following order is passed:
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned order dated 28 March 2025 passed by
respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside;
wp632-26-J.doc
(iii) The matter is remanded to respondent No.1 for fresh
consideration of the petitioner's claim for grant of pension on
higher wages;
(iv) Respondent No.1 shall reconsider the petitioner's
application by taking into account all available material on
record, including Form 3A, EPF account statements, joint
option application, and the clarification submitted by
respondent No.2, and shall not reject the claim solely on the
ground of non-production of Form 6A or challans, if the
claim can otherwise be verified;
(v) Respondent No.1 is at liberty to call for any further
information or clarification from respondent No.2 employer
and, if necessary, from the petitioner, for the purpose of
proper verification;
(vi) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order;
(vii) If the petitioner is found entitled upon such
reconsideration, consequential benefits shall be extended to
him in accordance with law within a further period of eight
weeks;
(viii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as
to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
