The Bombay High Court has held that the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) cannot reject joint options for pension on higher wages on the ground that the provident fund Trust Rules of an exempted establishment cap the employer’s contribution or do not provide for such contribution. Allowing six writ petitions filed by retired employees, the Court set aside EPFO’s rejection orders and directed it to process and allow the applications within eight weeks.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne decided the batch, which raised a common question: whether private trust rules of a provident fund trust of an exempted establishment under the EPF Act can govern contribution to the pension fund or restrict the joint option under paragraph 11(3)/11(4) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 (EPS, 1995).
Background
The petitioners were employees of Abbott India Limited (formerly Knoll Pharmaceuticals Ltd.), Brihanmumbai Electric Supply & Transport (BEST) Undertaking, Raymond Steel Limited and Tata Communications Ltd. After the Supreme Court’s judgment in Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Ors. vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors., they applied for pension on higher wages.
EPFO rejected the applications. It held that the Trust Rules of the establishments limited the employer’s pension contribution to the statutory wage ceiling. In some cases, it also cited non-production of forms and records. The rejections relied on the EPFO Head Office Circular dated 18 January 2025. That circular directed that eligibility be decided on the basis of the extant Trust Rules of the exempted establishment.
Arguments
Advocate Satyam Surana, appearing for the petitioners in all the petitions, argued that Sunil Kumar B. places exempted and unexempted establishments on par. He submitted that Trust Rules operate only in the field of provident fund and have no bearing on pension entitlement. He relied on rulings of the Madras, Karnataka, Calcutta and Allahabad High Courts.
Advocate Payoja Gandhi, appearing for EPFO, contended that the applications were rightly rejected and that, in many cases, the Trust Rules or relevant records were not produced. She pointed out that EPFO had challenged a Madras High Court Division Bench ruling before the Supreme Court and that the Calcutta High Court Single Judge’s ruling had been stayed by a Division Bench. She also argued that Tata Communications had not deposited PF contribution on all eligible heads of salary.
Court’s Findings
The Court noted that the issue was no longer res integra. It observed that “various High Courts across the country have consistently held that it is impermissible to deny the benefit of exercising joint option to contribute to the pension fund in actual wages by citing the Trust Rules.”
The Court rejected EPFO’s request to await the Supreme Court’s decision. It said: “Pendency of SLP cannot be a ground for keeping the present Petitions pending indefinitely.” Since all the petitioners were retired employees, the Court found it inappropriate to keep their petitions pending when several High Courts had already decided the issue.
On missing documents, the Court relied on its earlier rulings in Kiran Rajaram Jadhav and Durga Srinivas Kallakuri. Those rulings require EPFO to adopt alternative means of verification, including hearing the employees, where the employer fails to produce records. On the Tata Communications case, the Court found that PF contributions above the ceiling had in fact been made on basic pay. It added that EPFO’s counsel, “beyond quoting the Circular, she has not demonstrated as to how the said Circular comes in the way of these Petitioners in claiming the pension on higher wages.”
The Court concluded: “Therefore, a joint option cannot be rejected on the ground that the Trust Rules either envisage a cap /ceiling or employer’s contribution or that Trust Rules did not provide for joint option on higher pension on the ground that employer did not remit pension contribution on the wages exceeding the ceiling.”
Outcome
The Court set aside the impugned EPFO orders. It directed EPFO to process and allow the petitioners’ joint option applications for pension on higher wages within eight weeks. There was no order as to costs.
Case Title: Amit Gunvantrai Mehta vs. The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) and connected matters
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 13752 of 2026 and connected petitions
Bench: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Date: 19 October 2026
