Higher EPS Pension: EPFO can’t use the excuse of employer’s deficient system of recordkeeping as a ground to deny higher pension to employees, rules Bombay HC

When the employer failed to provide Form 6A and some challans, the Employee Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) ‘mechanically’ rejected higher pension claims from six employees. These employees assert that they all contributed to the PF based on their actual wages, rather than the statutory wage ceiling of Rs 15,000.

Thus feeling aggrieved the employees filed a case in the Bombay High Court and by way of a common order, the high court ruled in their favour.

The Bombay High Court on April 18, 2026 decided that the Employee Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) cannot deny higher pension to eligible employees who fulfilled all the conditions and contributed on the basis of their actual wages, simply because their employer did not provide the required documents requested by the EPFO.


The Bombay High Court said that EPF Act is a beneficial provision and it is the duty of EPFO to exhaust all options like examining all available records and conduct independent verification if there are gaps in an employee’s history. Rejection should be the last resort.

The Bombay High Court also said that the EPFO authority cannot insist upon a perfect set of documents in every case, particularly when dealing with old records (2010 and earlier) where such perfection might not be achievable. The key is to ensure satisfaction based on the available material.

The Bombay High Court said that if an employer isn’t fully cooperating, the authority cannot just wrap things up at that point. They need to dig deeper and conduct their own inquiry using the available sources. This would include examination of its internal records such as electronic data, old physical returns, member ledgers, passbook entries, contribution history and Form 3A details.

Bombay High Court said: “These materials can provide a picture regarding the contributions made by or on behalf of the employee. The (EPFO) authority must then arrive at a conclusion based on this material.”

Moreover, the Bombay HC also directed the EPFO to not reject higher pension claims for 2010 and earlier cases solely on the grounds of non-production of Form 6A, challans and other similar records by employer if Form 3A, EPF account statements, actual wage contribution history, and any other corroborative documents are available.

Also read: Higher EPS pension can’t be denied to members retiring after September 1, 2014, once EPFO accepts higher wage contributions, Kerala High Court

What happened in this case and why EPFO rejected the higher pension request?

This case was originally filed by Mr Kallakuri who completed his education and joined the electrical engineering department in 1980. Thereafter, he entered service and was engaged in various capacities with different employers. He retired on June 29, 2017 and according to him he had an unblemished career spanning 35 years.

During the course of such employment, he was granted several pay revisions, transfers and promotional benefits from time to time. Now when the the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 was notified by the government, he satisfied all the conditions prevalent at that time and thus in accordance with the law, he is therefore entitled to receive pension as he exercised his option.

Throughout his service tenure, contributions towards the provident fund were regularly made, and the respective employers deducted and remitted both the employer’s and employee’s contributions to EPFO without default. Now when the Supreme Court of India directed EPFO to take applications for higher pension based on actual wage contributions irrespective of the Rs 15,000 wage ceiling limit, Kallakuri exercised this option.

In pursuance of the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court, EPFO made available an online facility enabling submission of applications for exercise of such joint option for higher pension. On March 31, 2023, Kallakuri submitted his application (acknowledgment number 230331114801002255161) and along with it submitted the requisite documents and particulars as called for by EPFO. He also gave the details of contributions made on higher wages.

Once he submitted the application with the details of higher wage contribution, he thought that his pension would be computed on the basis of actual wages on which contributions were made. But the pension was not computed based on actual wages, but rather it was done based on the Rs 15,000 wage ceiling limit.

The reason for this is, on December 4, 2024 and February 3, 2025, EPFO forwarded Kallakuri’s higher pension application to the concerned employers, seeking certain documents and records in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time.

The documents so sought included proof of joint option under Paragraph 26(6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952, proof of joint option under the proviso to Paragraph 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, evidence of remittance of provident fund and pension contributions on wages exceeding the prescribed ceiling, any refusal by the authorities in respect of such remittances, and statutory forms such as Forms 3A and 6A along with challans.

Now in response to this request by EPFO, an employer on January 20, 2025 informed EPFO that all relevant documents, returns, and information had already been submitted to them from time to time and were available on record. It was further stated that Forms 3A and 6A had been periodically furnished and therefore there was no necessity for resubmission of the same. The employer said the same thing again on March 10, 2025 also and ultimately gave no document.

Thereafter, EPFO by order dated April 8, 2025, rejected Kallakuri’s application for grant of pension on higher wages. The rejection was on the ground that the requisite documents and records, as called for from the establishment or employer, were not submitted.

Kallakuri contended that he being an employee has no control or authority over documents maintained or to be maintained by his employer and since his PF contributions have been deducted based on actual wages and he satisfied all the conditions, he should be granted higher pension.

With this grievance, he reached the Bombay High Court where five other employees like him faced the same issue. The court decided all of these cases by a single common judgement and ruled in their favour and directed EPFO to process the higher pension claims. Advocate Satyam Surana represented the employees in the Bombay High Court.

Also read: EPFO orders audit of applications for higher pension; exempted units in focus

Bombay High Court discussion and order

Justice Amit Borkar of Bombay High Court gave this judgement (2026:BHC-AS:18208) on April 18, 2026.

Employee is not responsible for lapse of records to be maintained by employer

The high court said that Advocate Surana’s argument does carry weight.

It is a settled position that the employee does not maintain custody over returns which are required to be prepared and submitted by the employer under the scheme. Documents such as Form 6A, challans, and other related filings are part of the employer’s obligation, and the control over their preparation, preservation and submission lies with the establishment. The employee has no role in this process.

Therefore, if there is any lapse in production or maintenance of such records, the same cannot be fastened upon the employee. To hold otherwise would result in placing a burden upon a person who has neither authority nor access to such documents.

Also read: Higher EPS 95 Pension: For employees' higher pension, employer can’t contribute retrospectively to EPS above the statutory limit, rules Kerala HC

EPFO can’t reject higher pension claim on the ground of one missing document (Form 6A)

The high court observed that Kallakuri has relied upon Form 3A, the EPF account statement, the joint option form certified by the employer, and also furnished an undertaking to deposit any differential contribution. These documents are indicators of the employment, the wages drawn, and the contributions made.

Form 3A reflects yearly contribution details, and the EPF account statement shows the running account of deposits. If these records indicate that deductions were made on higher wages and contributions were credited, then they form a basis to examine the claim.

The Bombay High Court said: “In such a situation, the absence of one document, namely Form 6A or certain challans, cannot be treated as fatal. What is required is satisfaction about the factum of contribution, and that can be gathered from multiple sources.”

Also read: EPS 95 Pension: Madras HC allows higher EPS pension for post-Sept 1, 2014 retirees under this condition

EPFO can’t insist on perfect set of documents everytime

The high court said that pursuant to the Supreme Court’s direction about granting higher pension subject to exercise of option, fulfilment of specified conditions and actual wage contributions, EPFO did open the online facility. These are the essential requirements but the manner in which these requirements are applied must be reasonable.

The Bombay High Court said: “The (EPFO) authority cannot insist upon a perfect set of documents in every case, particularly when dealing with old records where such perfection may not be possible. The test is of satisfaction based on available material.”

EPF law is beneficial provision and is not intended to create hurdles for employees

The high court said that the EPF scheme is a beneficial legislation and its purpose is to secure pensionary benefits to employees who have contributed during their service. It is not intended to create hurdles which make it impossible for a genuine claimant to succeed.

The Bombay High Court said: “If the approach of the authority is technical, it may result in denial of benefits to persons who have fulfilled their obligations.” Such an interpretation would defeat the object of the scheme. Therefore, while compliance with conditions is necessary, the same must be assessed in a realistic manner.

If employer does not co-operate then EPFO should make its own inquiry rather than immediately rejecting the application

The high court said that Mr Kallakuri (employee) applied through the online mechanism for higher pension based on actual wage contribution introduced by EPFO pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court.

Thereafter, EPFO called upon the employer to furnish records and issued several reminders. The employer responded by stating that the relevant documents had already been submitted earlier and were available with the EPFO.

This reply raises a possibility that the records may be in the possession of the EPFO authority. At the same time, such a statement by the employer cannot be accepted without verification. It casts a duty upon the respondent to examine its own records and ascertain whether the documents are indeed available.

The Bombay High Court said: “In a situation where the employer does not fully cooperate, the authority cannot close the matter at that stage. It must proceed further and make its own inquiry from available sources.”

This would include examination of its internal records such as electronic data, old physical returns, member ledgers, passbook entries, contribution history and Form 3A details. These materials can provide a picture regarding the contributions made by or on behalf of the employee. The EPFO authority must then arrive at a conclusion based on this material.

EPFO should use rejection option as last resort after exhausting all option of verification of records

The Bombay High Court said that they are of the view that for such old (2010) cases where the records were still physically maintained and not digitised, the EPFO authorities must adopt a workable approach.

The high court said that initially, the EPFO authority must call upon the employer to produce records and grant reasonable opportunity. If the employer fails to respond or responds inadequately, the authority must then turn to its own records and verify what is already available.

Thereafter, if gaps are still found, the authority should seek corroboration from other reliable documents such as the employee’s joint option, salary records, appointment details, wage slips, bank statements and prior communications of the employer.

If upon such examination it appears that contributions on higher wages were in fact made and that the employee had exercised the option, then the authority should proceed to process the claim, subject to payment of any differential contribution and applicable interest.

The Bombay High Court said: “Rejection should not be the immediate outcome. It must come only after all possible avenues of verification are exhausted and a finding is recorded that the claim cannot be substantiated even on consideration of available material. Even in such a case, reasons must be clearly stated.”

Employee cannot be made to suffer for employer’s default or deficiency

The Bombay high court said that the above mentioned approach is necessary as employees cannot be made to suffer for defaults of the employer or for deficiencies in record maintenance by the EPFO authority itself.

“The system of maintaining records is intended to safeguard the interests of employees. It cannot be used as a ground to deny benefits.”

Particularly in cases relating to earlier periods, insistence on production of original records in a particular format may lead to unjust results. The high court said that EPFO authority must therefore adopt a rational method of verification, asking whether there is evidence of contribution, whether the employment is established, and whether the overall material supports the claim.

Bombay High Court order:
The Bombay High Court said that applying these principles to the present case, it becomes evident that Mr Kallakuri (employee) has raised a substantial claim. The documents produced by him, when read along with the employer’s responses and the records likely to be available with EPFO, required a deeper scrutiny.

The impugned order, however, proceeds on the ground that certain documents were not produced by the employer, without examining whether the other materials on record were sufficient to establish entitlement.

The high court said that this reflects a mechanical approach which is not consistent with the nature of the scheme. The claim ought to have been examined on its substance, especially when the deficiency is attributable to lack of cooperation by the employer and the historical nature of the records.

In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the following order is passed:

• (i) The impugned orders dated April 8, 2025, April 9, 2025 and 4 December 2025 passed by the respondent (EPFO), rejecting the applications of the petitioners for grant of pension on higher wages, are quashed and set aside;
• (ii) The matters are remanded to the respondent authority for fresh consideration of the petitioners’ applications for pension on higher wages, in accordance with law and in light of the observations made in this judgment;
• (iii) The respondent (EPFO) 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, particularly for the period prior to the year 2010, and shall instead examine all available material including Form 3A, EPF account statements, contribution history, and any other corroborative documents;
• (iv) The respondent shall make an independent verification of records available in its own custody, including electronic data and past returns, and shall also take into account the communications made by the employer and the documents already submitted by the petitioners;
• (v) In the event the respondent finds that contributions on higher wages were in fact made and that the petitioners had exercised the joint option in substance, the respondent shall process the claims and grant consequential pensionary benefits, subject to deposit of any differential contribution along with applicable interest, in accordance with the scheme;
• (vi) The petitioners shall be given an opportunity, if required, to furnish any additional material or clarification in support of their claims, within such time as may be prescribed by the respondent;
• (vii) The entire exercise of reconsideration shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order;
• (viii) It is clarified that the respondent shall pass a reasoned and speaking order upon reconsideration, dealing with all relevant material and contentions;
• (ix) All writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.