The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) cannot reject an employee’s application for pension on higher wages solely on the ground that the employer failed to produce specific statutory records like Form 6A or monthly challans. Justice Amit Borkar, while setting aside a rejection order by the Assistant Pension Commissioner, Dadar, observed that the responsibility for maintaining such records rests with the employer and not the employee.
The Court has remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the EPFO to verify the claim using other available materials such as Form 3A and EPF account statements.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Kiran Rajaram Jadhav, served as a Pharmacist with Haffkine Bio-Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited (Respondent No. 2) for approximately 37 years, from May 1987 until his superannuation in January 2024. Following the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation and Others vs. Sunil Kumar B. and Others (2022), Jadhav submitted an online application for a joint option to receive pension on higher wages exceeding the statutory ceiling.
However, on March 28, 2025, the Assistant Pension Commissioner rejected his application. The rejection was based on the grounds that the employer had failed to submit Form 6A and monthly challans for the period prior to March 2010. The EPFO contended that in the absence of these documents, it could not verify whether administrative charges on higher wages had been paid or confirm the authenticity of the contributions.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: Advocate Satyam Surana, appearing for Jadhav, argued that the primary statutory obligation to maintain and produce Form 6A rests squarely on the employer. He contended that Jadhav had already submitted all necessary documents, including a certified joint option form and EPF account passbook. It was argued that Form 3A, which contains year-wise contribution details, was available and sufficient for verification. The petitioner also provided an undertaking to deposit any differential amount required.
Employer’s Stand: Respondent No. 2 (Haffkine Bio-Pharmaceutical) submitted that they had provided all available month-wise wage details and Form 3A. They clarified that certain records subsequent to April 2011 were unavailable due to a transition to online systems, but maintained that sufficient material was provided to the EPFO.
EPFO’s Submissions: Advocate Payoja Gandhi, representing the EPFO, supported the rejection order. She argued that Form 6A is an “essential document” for verifying annual contributions. Without it and the monthly challans, the authority claimed it could not establish the authenticity of the contributions on higher wages as required by the Supreme Court’s directions.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Amit Borkar found the EPFO’s “inflexible” approach unacceptable. The Court highlighted that Form 6A is a statutory record within the control and custody of the establishment, and an employee has no authority to preserve it.
“The approach appears to proceed on a narrow reading of record requirements without considering the practical position of the employee… expecting the petitioner to produce such document is not in consonance with the scheme of the statute.”
The Court observed that Form 3A and EPF account statements often contain substantially the same data as Form 6A. Therefore, if the essential data is on record, the claim should not be defeated by technical deficiencies.
Key observations included:
- Welfare Nature of the Scheme: The Court noted that pension law is intended to secure post-retirement benefits, not to create hurdles. “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.”
- Burden of Proof: The Court held that once an employee establishes that contributions were deducted from wages, the burden shifts to the employer and the statutory authority to reconcile records.
- Substance Over Form: Focusing solely on missing documents while ignoring other evidentiary material like account history and employer admissions “amounts to giving importance to form over substance.”
The Court further stated:
“Pension is not a matter of favour. It is a benefit earned through long years of service… The employee’s role is limited. He works, earns wages, and contribution is deducted. He does not maintain statutory returns.”
The Decision
The High Court quashed and set aside the EPFO’s order dated March 28, 2025. The matter has been remanded to the Assistant Pension Commissioner (Respondent No. 1) for fresh consideration.
The Court issued the following directions:
- The EPFO must reconsider the application by taking into account all available material, including Form 3A, EPF account statements, and the employer’s clarification.
- The claim shall not be rejected solely due to the non-production of Form 6A or challans if the entitlement can otherwise be verified.
- The exercise must be completed within eight weeks.
- If found entitled, consequential benefits must be extended to the petitioner within a further period of eight weeks.
Case Details
- Case Name: Kiran Rajaram Jadhav vs. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr.
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 632 of 2026
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Borkar
- Date: March 26, 2026
