In a significant ruling on pension rights, the Bombay High Court has set aside an EPFO order that denied higher pension benefits to a retired employee due to missing employer records. The Court emphasized that employees cannot be penalised for gaps in documentation maintained by employers.
Background of the Case
The case, Kiran Rajaram Jadhav v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr., arose after the petitioner, a pharmacist who served for nearly 37 years, sought pension on higher wages under the Employees’ Pension Scheme.
After the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling allowing eligible employees to opt for higher pension, the petitioner applied through the EPFO portal in September 2023. However, his claim was rejected in March 2025 due to the employer’s failure to submit certain records, including Form 6A and challans.
Read also:- Delhi Court Dismisses State’s Plea in 2020 Riots Case, Upholds Discharge of Two Accused
Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the decision.
Justice Amit Borkar noted that the dispute was narrow but had serious consequences for the petitioner, who had rendered long and uninterrupted service.
The Court observed that Form 6A is a document maintained by the employer, and an employee has no control over its preservation or production.
“The approach appears to proceed on a narrow reading of record requirements without considering the practical position of the employee,” the bench remarked.
The Court further highlighted that other records, such as Form 3A, EPF account statements, and employer submissions, were available and could be used for verification.
“The law relating to pension is not meant to create hurdles… it is intended to secure a post-retirement benefit,” the Court stated.
Read also:- Supreme Court Flags ‘Disturbing’ Probe in Minor Assault Case, Orders SIT to Take Over Haryana Investigation
It also stressed that pension is a welfare measure and not a discretionary benefit, adding that denial based solely on missing employer-side records would be unjust.
The EPFO argued that without Form 6A and challans, verification of higher wage contributions was not possible.
On the other hand, the employer admitted that some records were unavailable due to system transitions but maintained that contribution details and Form 3A had been provided.
The High Court found that the EPFO had taken an overly rigid approach. It held that verification is not limited to a single document and can be carried out using multiple sources of evidence.
The bench noted that once the employee establishes continuous service and contribution, the burden shifts to the employer and authorities to verify records.
Read also:- Supreme Court Cracks Down on Tenant’s Repeated Pleas, Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost in Eviction Row
“The employee cannot be placed in disadvantage because of that,” the Court observed, referring to missing employer records.
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the EPFO’s order dated March 28, 2025.
It directed the EPFO to reconsider the petitioner’s claim by examining all available material, including Form 3A, EPF account details, and employer submissions.
The authority was specifically instructed not to reject the claim solely due to non-production of Form 6A or challans, if entitlement can otherwise be established.
The reconsideration process is to be completed within eight weeks, with consequential benefits to follow if the petitioner is found eligible.
Case Details
Case Title: Kiran Rajaram Jadhav v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 632 of 2026
Judge: Justice Amit Borkar
Decision Date: March 26, 2026
