Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Income Tax Reassessment, Directs Petitioner to File Appeal Adultery Requires Proof of Sexual Relations, Mere Emotional Attachment is No Ground to Deny Maintenance: MP High Court Co-Sharer Cannot Sell Specific Land Without Partition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Mutation Illegal When Best Evidence is Withheld, an Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn Against the Prosecution: Supreme Court Slams State for Procedural Lapses When the State Itself Did Not Challenge the Earlier Judgment, Third Parties Cannot Litigate on Its Behalf: Supreme Court When Parties Have Agreed to a Fixed Compensation, Courts Cannot Rewrite the Contract to Award Additional Damages: Supreme Court When an Employer Deprives an Employee of Work Through Illegal Action, They Must Face the Consequences: Supreme Court Condemns State Transport Corporation’s “Fraud on Court” Possession Handed Over Before the Sale Deed Makes the Agreement a Conveyance: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Against Stamp Duty Demand Promissory Estoppel Cannot Override Public Interest: Supreme Court Upholds Goa’s Power Tariff Rebate Withdrawal Tenants Cannot Stall Public Projects Indefinitely; Eviction Under MRTP Act is Legally Valid: Bombay High Court High Court Cannot Reassess Labour Court's Findings Like an Appellate Body: Delhi HC Consensual Physical Relationship Over Four Years Cannot Constitute Rape Under Section 376(2)(n): Karnataka High Court An Injured Witness Comes with a Built-In Guarantee of Truth: Allahabad HC Eviction Cannot Be Ordered Solely Because Evidence is Unrebutted: Kerala HC Encroachment Claims Do Not Justify Forcible Dispossession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Injunction, Dismisses Appeal Limitation | An Educated Litigant Cannot Claim the Same Protection as an Illiterate One: Delhi HC Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe’s Trademark Infringement Suit Against BundlePe & LatePe Bare Injunction Suit Unsustainable Without Declaration of Title When Ownership is Disputed: Karnataka High Court SARFASI | Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies Essential in SARFAESI Matters: Kerala High Court Once Penalty Period Ends, Employee Must Be Reconsidered for Promotion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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