Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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.

Latest Legal News