EPFO Cannot Reject Higher Pension Claims Solely for Employer’s Failure to Produce Form 6A, Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court

Retired Sangam Dairy employees entitled to fresh consideration of higher pension claims; EPFO directed to verify its own records and not penalise employees for employer defaults.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has held that eligible employees cannot be denied higher pension under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, merely because their employer fails to produce Form 6A, monthly challans, or similar statutory records, when other material in the EPFO’s own custody indicates that contributions on higher wages were made. Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, sitting singly, remanded the claims of twelve retired employees of Sangam Dairy, Vadlamudi, Guntur District, for fresh consideration by the Regional and Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners, Guntur. The court declared the inaction of EPFO authorities and the employer in approving the petitioners’ Joint Option applications as arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. EPFO was directed to complete reconsideration within twelve weeks.

The Dispute Before the Court

Twelve retired employees of Sangam Dairy — an unexempted establishment under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 — filed Writ Petition No. 25295 of 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution. They sought a Writ of Mandamus against the Union of India, the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, and the Managing Director of Sangam Dairy.

The petitioners, aged between 61 and 68 years at the time of filing, retired from Sangam Dairy after long service across various capacities. Provident fund contributions had been deducted from their salaries and remitted to EPFO throughout their service, including contributions on wages above the statutory ceiling of Rs. 15,000 per month.

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 4 November 2022 in Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Others v. Sunil Kumar B. & Others (SLP (Civil) Nos. 8658–8659 of 2019), EPFO introduced an online facility for employees to submit Joint Option applications for pension calculated on actual wages rather than the statutory ceiling. The petitioners submitted their applications through this facility, duly acknowledged by EPFO Guntur, which then forwarded them to Sangam Dairy for employer approval.

Sangam Dairy informed EPFO that all relevant statutory records, including Forms 3A and 6A, had already been submitted to EPFO from time to time and were available in EPFO’s own records. Despite repeated communications, EPFO Guntur rejected the petitioners’ applications on the ground that the specific documents it had called for — proof of Joint Option under Paragraph 26(6) of the EPF Scheme and Paragraph 11(3) of the EPS, Forms 3A and 6A, challans, and related records — had not been furnished by the employer. The last date for processing Joint Option applications was 30 September 2023.

Aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether an otherwise eligible employee can be denied the benefit of higher pension solely because the employer fails to produce every document demanded by EPFO, despite other material indicating eligibility being available on record.

The Court noted this issue carried particular weight for periods prior to 2010, when electronic record maintenance was not fully implemented and many establishments maintained records manually. In such circumstances, the Court held, authorities cannot insist upon a single document as the exclusive mode of proof.

The petitioners relied on Form 3A (annual contribution details), EPF account statements, Joint Option Forms certified by the employer, and undertakings to deposit differential contribution with applicable interest. Their counsel, Mr. Prabhunath Vasireddy, argued that employees have no custody or control over statutory returns such as Form 6A and challans, which are entirely the employer’s obligation under the Scheme. He contended that Form 6A and challans are procedural documents whose information is already reflected in Form 3A and EPF records held by EPFO itself.

EPFO’s counsel, Mr. T. Balaji, maintained that production of a valid Joint Option, proof of contributions on wages above the statutory ceiling, Forms 3A and 6A, and challans were mandatory prerequisites. He argued the petitioners had not satisfied the conditions prescribed by the Supreme Court and the applicable EPFO circulars, and that mere submission of an online application does not automatically entitle an employee to pension on higher wages.

Sangam Dairy’s counsel, Mr. Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, submitted that historical records from periods prior to digitisation were not readily available with the employer, but were available with EPFO itself as the statutory custodian. He pointed out that Sangam Dairy had repeatedly requested EPFO Guntur to provide copies of Forms 3A and 6A from its own records or to suggest an alternative verification mechanism, without any response.

How the Court Reasoned

The Court accepted the petitioners’ submissions as meritorious. It observed that employees do not prepare or preserve documents such as Form 6A and challans, which are part of the employer’s statutory obligations. Attributing any deficiency in those records to the employee would impose an unreasonable burden on someone who has neither access to nor control over such documents.

The Court found it significant that EPFO had never penalised Sangam Dairy for any default in payment of EPF contributions in respect of the petitioners. In the absence of any such default finding, EPFO could not insist on a particular document and refuse to proceed.

Justice Nimmagadda drew on the Bombay High Court’s judgment in Kiran Rajaram Jadhav v. The Employees Provident Fund Organization, which had held that an employee who has placed on record continuous service, provident fund deductions from wages, and active EPF membership cannot be denied benefit solely because Form 6A or challans are missing. That judgment had directed EPFO to re-examine the claim using all available records — EPF account details, Form 3A, employer submissions, and account statements — rather than confining verification to a single document.

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Limited v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1962 SC 1044), Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar (AIR 1971 SC 1409), and R.C. Gupta v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO ((2018) 14 SCC 809) for the proposition that pension is not a bounty payable at the employer’s discretion but a vested right of the employee.

The Court observed that the Employees’ Pension Scheme is a beneficial social welfare legislation designed to secure post-retirement benefits, not to create procedural barriers that defeat legitimate claims. A rigid and overly technical approach to record requirements would be contrary to the Scheme’s purpose.

On the constitutional dimension, the Court held that denial of pension — which constitutes an employee’s livelihood after retirement — engages the right to life under Article 21. It noted that the Supreme Court had recognised the right to livelihood as a fundamental right through judicial interpretation of Article 21. The Court also referred to a Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh ((2020) 5 ALT 77), which held that non-payment of pension without lawful authority violates Article 300-A of the Constitution.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ applications had not, in fact, been rejected on the ground that they were ineligible or had not contributed higher amounts. The rejection was solely on the ground that certain employer-side records had not been furnished. The Court found this approach mechanical and inconsistent with the beneficial object of the Scheme.

For cases involving historical records, particularly those relating to periods prior to 2010, the Court laid down a graduated approach: authorities must first provide the employer a reasonable opportunity to furnish records; if the response remains inadequate, they must independently verify records in their own custody, including electronic data, contribution histories, member ledgers, and Form 3A; and they may also seek corroboration from salary records, appointment orders, wage slips, bank statements, and prior correspondence. Rejection should be resorted to only after all reasonable avenues of verification have been exhausted and clear reasons are recorded.

Directions Issued

The Court issued the following specific directions upon disposing of the writ petition:

The inaction of Respondent Nos. 2 to 7, particularly Sangam Dairy (Respondent No. 6), in not approving the petitioners’ Joint Option applications was declared arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The matter was remanded to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Guntur (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5), for fresh consideration of the petitioners’ applications for pension on higher wages.

Upon reconsideration, EPFO Guntur shall not reject the claims solely on the ground of non-production of Form 6A, challans, or similar records by the employer, particularly for periods prior to the year 2010. All available material — Form 3A, EPF account statements, contribution history, and any other relevant or corroborative records — must be examined.

EPFO Guntur shall independently verify records in its own custody, including electronic data, historical returns, contribution records, and communications issued by Sangam Dairy and documents already submitted by the petitioners.

If, upon verification, EPFO Guntur is satisfied that contributions on higher wages were made and that the petitioners had substantially complied with the requirement of exercising a Joint Option, the claims shall be processed and consequential pensionary benefits extended under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, subject to payment of any differential contribution with applicable interest, if required.

The petitioners shall be given a reasonable opportunity to submit additional documents, information, or clarification in support of their claims.

EPFO Guntur shall pass a reasoned and speaking order upon reconsideration, addressing all relevant material and contentions.

Order

The writ petition was disposed of on 24 June 2026. The twelve-week period for completing reconsideration runs from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Miscellaneous petitions pending in the matter were dismissed. There was no order as to costs. The order was marked as speaking, reasoned, and reportable.