EPS Pension | EPFO Cannot Deny Higher Pension On The Ground That Contributions Were Paid In Bulk: Kerala High Court

Justice Murali Purushothaman ordered so in a petition filed by employees who retired from Milma. On retirement, the EPFO denied pension on actual salary to these employees saying that during some period the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (TCMPU) of MILMA contributed based on the statutory limit. However, TCMPU had made bulk payments to EPFO to make up for the balance amount along with the interest.

The Court held that the EPFO having accepted the contribution based on actual salary cannot now deny the petitioner higher pension.

“The petitioners and the 4^th respondent having complied with the requirements under the said paragraph, and the Employees Provident Fund Organisation accepted the contributions, the 2^nd respondent cannot deny the petitioner the benefit of the higher pension… It is declared that the petitioners are entitled to get higher pension on actual wages”.

Initially, when the petitioner joined the Pension scheme of the EPFO, TCMPU contributed based on the actual salary. This was later stopped after the Government ordering the TCMPU to limit their contribution to the statutory limit. Against this decision, the employees and the association approached the High Court. During the time of the ongoing litigation, the High Court directed the TCMPU to deposit the amount in excess of the statutory limit in a separate account in a nationalized bank and to deposit it in the employee's provident fund account with 9% interest if the case is decided in the favour of the employees.

Ultimately, the High Court decided that an employer can decide to make higher contribution than the statutory limit. Based on this decision, TCMPU decided to contribute to the scheme based on the actual salary. The entire amount deposited in separate bank accounts were transferred to EPFO along with interest and administration charges. The EPFO denied the higher pension to the employees saying the during the corresponding month in the intervening period, the employer only contributed based on the statutory limit. This argument was rejected by the Court.

The Court directed the EPFO to give higher pension to the petitioners within 3 months.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates P. N. Mohanan, C. P. Sabari, Amrutha Suresh, Gilroy Rozario

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Nita N. S., (SC) Latha Anand (SC) T. C. Krishna (DSGI)

Case No: WP(C) 1932 of 2025

Case Title: Gopinathan Pillai M. & Others v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 234