Back
Amit Borkar, J
Durga Srinivas Kallakuri – Appellant
Versus
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of petitions and factual history of pension application denials due to missing documents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. arguments comparing employer's statutory duty versus individual employee's inability to control record submission. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. judicial philosophy on evidentiary burden and the necessity for administrative pragmatism in beneficial legislation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. final order remanding the matters for fresh verification based on the established principles. (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT:
1. Inasmuch as a common question of law arises for consideration and the factual matrix in all the present writ petitions is substantially identical, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order, so as to avoid repetition of facts.
2. By these writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner in each of the matters has called in question the legality and correctness of the orders dated 8 April 2025, 9 April 2025 and 4 December 2025 passed by the respondent authority, on the grounds set out therein.
3. The facts gi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
