A Court Cannot Deny Just Maintenance Merely Because the Applicant Claimed Less: Orissa High Court Upholds ₹10,000 Monthly Support for Elderly Wife Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Land Acquisition Challenge, Cites "Delay and Laches" as Key Factors Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification Proved Beyond Doubt: Kerala High Court Affirms Conviction in Bribery Case Violation of Decree Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Application Under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC Ensuring Teacher Attendance Through Technology is Not Arbitrary, But Privacy of Female Teachers Must Be Protected: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Circular Once a Mortgage is Permitted, Auction Sale Needs No Further NOC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Delay Defeats Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Petition for Appointment as PCS (Judicial) After 16-Year Delay Minor Signature Differences Due to Age and Health Do Not Void Will if Testamentary Capacity Established: Kerala High Court Criminal Investigation Cannot Be Stalled on Grounds of Political Conspiracy Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Refused to Quash FIR Against MLA Munirathna Family Courts Must Prioritize Justice Over Technicalities" – Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Closing Wife’s Right to Defend Divorce Case Fraud Vitiates Everything—Sale of Debuttar Property by Sole Shebait Cannot Stand: Calcutta High Court Reassessment Cannot Be Used to Reopen Settled Issues Without New Material – Bombay High Court Quashes ₹542 Crore Tax Demand on Tata Communications Repeated FIRs Against Multiple Accused Raise Serious Questions on Motive: Allahabad High Court Orders CBI Inquiry Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Income Tax | Transfer Pricing Adjustments Must Be Based on Economic Reality, Not Hypothetical Comparisons: Delhi High Court Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Technicality: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Police Officers A Contract Must Be Read as a Whole – Selective Interpretation Cannot Create Rights: Bombay High Court Preventive Detention Cannot Be a Substitute for Criminal Trial, but Habitual Offenders Cannot Claim Immunity: Delhi High Court Upholds NDPS Detention Self-Defence Cannot Justify Armed Assault—Force Must Be Proportionate to Threat: Punjab & Haryana High Court Public Service Commission Cannot Shift Stance on Qualification Criteria Arbitrarily – Kerala High Court in LDC Recruitment Case Mere Allegations Without Specific Instances of Cruelty Cannot Sustain Conviction Under Section 306 IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Proof Beyond Doubt Is the Only Standard: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Accused of Wife’s Murder Bank Cannot Hold Pledged Shares After Settlement of Dues: Bombay High Court Orders PNB to Return ITC Shares to Stockbroker Second Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC If De Facto Separation from First Marriage Proven: Supreme Court Extradition Cannot Be Ordered When Passport is Impounded: Supreme Court Quashes Order Against NRI Husband Justice Must Not Be an Illusion: Supreme Court Directs All Courts to Ensure Execution of Decrees Within Six Months Mere Inconvenience Cannot Override Statutory Jurisdiction in Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court Rejects Transfer Petition Supreme Court Rules: Summoning Orders Under Section 319 CrPC Can Relate Back to Original Application Even After Trial Conclusion

Employer’s Failure to Provide Records Cannot Deny Pension Entitlement: Calcutta High Court Orders PF Authorities to Consider Service Period for Pension Calculation

04 February 2025 2:04 PM

By: sayum


Interest on Provident Fund Cannot Be Claimed Indefinitely - Calcutta High Court has held that an employee cannot be denied pension benefits merely because the employer failed to provide service records. The court directed the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) to consider the verified service period from 1985 to 1987 while computing the petitioner’s pension entitlement.

While granting relief to the petitioner regarding pension eligibility, the court refused to interfere with the provident fund authorities’ findings on interest calculations and the settlement of PF dues, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to interest beyond March 31, 2014, as per the governing Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) regulations. The court further directed that the admissible dues of Rs. 3,74,954 must be paid to the petitioner within two months.

Denial of Pension Based on Missing Records Unjustified: Court Orders PF Authorities to Acknowledge Verified Service

The petitioner, Sanjoy Kumar Das, approached the Calcutta High Court, challenging the denial of his pension and provident fund dues by the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner (Kolkata Zone) & Others. His primary grievance was that his service period from 1985 to 1987 had not been considered for pension eligibility due to the employer’s failure to maintain proper records.

The High Court, after examining the records and submissions, observed that the PF authorities themselves had verified the petitioner’s service tenure. The court noted, "Even though the employer has failed to provide documents, the fact remains that the petitioner worked from 1985 to 1987. The Provident Fund authorities have verified this service period, and there is no dispute on this fact. Therefore, there is no justification in denying pension benefits on this ground."

The court directed the concerned authorities to compute the petitioner’s pension entitlement while considering the verified service period.

"Interest on Provident Fund Cannot Be Claimed Indefinitely": Court Upholds Denial of Interest Beyond 2014 on Inoperative Accounts

The petitioner had sought interest beyond March 31, 2014, arguing that the delay in settlement was attributable to the PF authorities. However, the court held that the statutory provisions governing provident fund accounts did not permit the grant of interest beyond a certain period for inoperative accounts.

Referring to the EPF Notification dated January 15, 2011, the court ruled that the petitioner’s account had become inoperative 36 months after the cessation of his employment in 1987, meaning interest was only payable until March 31, 2014. The court observed, "The law is clear. Once an account becomes inoperative under the statutory framework, interest cannot be claimed indefinitely. The petitioner’s account, as per the governing regulations, ceased to earn interest beyond March 31, 2014, and there is no ground to challenge this decision."

The court also rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the November 11, 2016 notification, clarifying that "The revised modalities for crediting interest to inoperative accounts do not apply to the petitioner’s case, as he left service in 1987. His case is governed by the earlier notification of January 15, 2011."

Court Finds No Grounds to Interfere in PF Authorities' Decision on Overpaid Amount and Deductions

The petitioner had also disputed a deduction of Rs. 51,072, which the PF authorities had classified as an overpayment. The court upheld the deduction, stating that the petitioner was required to refund the amount before further pension processing.

The court, citing the reasoned decision of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, held that "The calculations regarding provident fund dues have been verified by the competent authority, and a reasoned order has been passed. This court finds no reason to interfere with those findings."

Final Directions: Pension Entitlement Recognized, PF Dues to be Paid in Two Months

While rejecting the petitioner’s claim for additional interest, the court directed the PF authorities to release all admissible dues within two months. The judgment reinforced the principle that an employee’s rightful benefits cannot be denied due to the employer’s negligence in maintaining records, while also affirming the legal limitations on interest claims in inoperative provident fund accounts.

By balancing employee rights with statutory limitations, the Calcutta High Court’s decision sets a precedent in safeguarding pension entitlements while ensuring compliance with provident fund regulations.

Similar News