Government Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Regular Pay-Scale to Employees Appointed on Sanctioned Posts: Supreme Court Extends Benefit to Special Recruitment Drive Employees Presumption Under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act Is Not Automatic: Supreme Court Holds That Dowry Death Allegations Must Be Substantiated with Evidence Supreme Court Directs Immediate Implementation of Judicial Pay Revisions Demand for Dowry, in Any Form, is Unlawful and Condemnable: Supreme Court Affirms Guilt but Grants Relief Considering Passage of Time Baseless Accusations Destroy Marital Trust - False Allegations of Infidelity and Dowry Demand Amount to Mental Cruelty: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Decree Payment for Use of Goodwill is Not Illegal or Against Public Policy: Delhi High Court CIVIL BREACH CANNOT BE CRIMINALIZED: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT QUASHES CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN LOAN DISPUTE Rigours of Section 45 PMLA Cannot Eclipse Article 21’s Guarantee of Liberty When Trial Delays Exceed Reasonable Limits: Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Bank Chairman Seniority for Promotion Must Be Based on Feeder Category, Not Initial Appointment as Police Constable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Temporary Employment Does Not Disqualify Wife From Claiming Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC: Kerala High Court Right to Default Bail is a Fundamental Right; Cannot be Denied Due to Procedural Lapses:  Uttarakhand High Court Fraud Must Be Pleaded and Proved, Mere Allegation Insufficient: Telangana High Court Exclusion Without Justification Is Arbitrary: Tripura High Court Orders Equal Allowances for Jail Warders on Par with Police Personnel Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Jail Murder Case, Citing Insufficient Evidence of Conspiracy Patna High Court Upholds Exclusion of B.Tech Holders from Junior Engineer (Civil) Post, Dismisses Challenge to Bihar Recruitment Rules Matrimonial Dispute No Ground to Quash FIR If Prima Facie Case Exists: Madhya Pradesh High Court Notice of Dishonor is Non-Negotiable: High Court Dismisses Bank’s Recovery Suit for Procedural Lapse Madras High Court Dismisses ₹1842 Crores Recovery Claim by Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation as Time-Barred and Unsubstantiated Entertainment Tax Must Be Refunded on Unsold Tickets – High Court of Kerala Mere Non-Return of Money and Quarrel Does Not Constitute Abetment to Suicide Under Section 306 IPC: Karnataka High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Applies – Acquittal Cannot Be Overturned Without Evidence of Perversity: Gujarat High Court Consent Based on Deception is No Consent at All:  Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea for Discharge in False Promise of Marriage Case Employer’s Failure to Provide Records Cannot Deny Pension Entitlement: Calcutta High Court Orders PF Authorities to Consider Service Period for Pension Calculation Murder Conviction Set Aside as 'Sudden Quarrel'—Bombay High Court Modifies Sentence to Culpable Homicide" No Title, No Injunction: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Baptist Church Land Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC Protects Husband from Rape Charges: Supreme Court Quashes FIR After Marriage Found to be Consensual Mere Presence in a Government Office Does Not Mean Incident Occurred in Public View: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under SCST

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

03 February 2025 3:17 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