Bombay High Court orders EPFO to allow higher-pension applications of 46 retirees within eight weeks, rejects 'PF trust rules' reason
On 19 October 2026 the Bombay High Court set aside EPFO's rejection of 46 retirees' higher-pension applications and told EPFO to allow them within eight weeks, holding that a PF trust's rules cannot be a ground to reject.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), which runs the provident fund and pension schemes for private-sector workers, cannot reject a request for a higher pension on the ground that the employer’s provident fund trust rules do not allow it. In a judgment dated 19 October 2026, Justice Sandeep V. Marne set aside EPFO’s rejection orders in six petitions covering 46 retired employees and directed EPFO to process and allow their applications within eight weeks. The order applies to those petitioners. The judgment gives no pension amounts.
What the petitions were about
Under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 (EPS), a worker’s pension is calculated on salary up to a limit, the “wage ceiling”. Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in EPFO v. Sunil Kumar B., members could apply to have their pension worked out on their higher actual salary by exercising a “joint option”, a request made together with the employer. The petitioners applied, and EPFO rejected the applications. The judgment says the reasons included the employer’s PF trust rules and, in some cases, missing records.
A PF trust is a private fund that some large employers run for their staff’s provident fund instead of EPFO. An employer in that position is called an “exempted establishment” because it is exempted from the main EPFO arrangement. The judgment records that the petitioners worked at Abbott India Limited, Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) Undertaking, Raymond Steel Limited and Tata Communications Limited (including a related group company).
By petition, as the judgment records them:
- two Abbott India employees;
- 39 BEST retirees;
- one Raymond Steel retiree;
- four people linked to Tata Communications, filed in two petitions.
What the court held
The court said the rules or deeds of the provident fund trust of an exempted establishment operate only for the provident fund, and that a joint option for pension applies to their employees in the same way as to employees of non-exempted establishments. It held that a joint option cannot be rejected because the trust rules set a cap or ceiling, because they do not provide for a joint option on higher pension, or because the employer did not pay pension contributions on salary above the ceiling.
The judgment also noted that EPFO had relied on its Head Office circular of 18 January 2025, which said eligibility should be decided on the exempted establishment’s current trust rules. The court observed that this circular had already been set aside by various High Courts, and held EPFO’s orders unsustainable. Separately, EPFO’s counsel cited a circular of 14 June 2023 on checking employer contributions; the court said she had not shown how it stood in the way of the petitioners’ claims.
EPFO pointed to a pending special leave petition (an appeal to the Supreme Court) against a Madras High Court contempt order in a related higher-pension case. The court said that pendency was not a ground to keep these petitions pending indefinitely, given that the petitioners were retired and several other High Courts had already decided the issue. For the cases where records were missing, the court relied on its earlier rulings in Kiran Rajaram Jadhav and Durga Srinivas Kallakuri, under which EPFO is to consider other ways of verifying the employment and contribution details.
What it covers
The operative order sets aside EPFO’s rejection orders for the petitioners and directs EPFO to process and allow their joint-option applications within eight weeks. There was no order on costs. The judgment does not say that every EPFO member is entitled to a higher pension, and it does not set out the contribution or documentation conditions that other applicants would have to meet.
Basis of these figures
The details above come from the judgment of 19 October 2026 in Writ Petition No. 13752 of 2026 and the connected petitions (Nos. 13962, 13955, 12957, 12873 and 12869 of 2026), which was opened and read in full as a copy hosted by Law Trend. The count of 46 is the total of the petitioners named in the six petitions. The judgment was cross-checked against reports by Law Trend and Outlook Money.