Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 553
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
Hemanshu Mishra, President, Arti Sood, Member, Narayan Thakur, Member
Abhinay Katoch – Appellant
Versus
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No.-DC/18/CC/297/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abhinandan Samyal
For the Respondents: S.K Dogra
Miscalculation of the service period and application of an incorrect contribution factor for withdrawal benefits under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, constitutes a deficiency in service.
Headnote:The matter involves the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 and the EPF & MP Act, 1952. A former employee claimed a shortfall in withdrawal benefits, asserting that the amount credited to his account was less than the accumulated contributions recorded in his EPF passbook. The court found that the opposite party had arbitrarily reduced the service period by alleging a non-contributory period without providing documentary evidence. The primary issue was whether the opposite party committed a deficiency in service by miscalculating the withdrawal benefit. The court reasoned that for a confirmed service period of eleven months and twelve days, the statutory return of contribution factor under Table D of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 is 0.94, whereas the opposite party incorrectly applied a factor of 0.85 corresponding to a ten-month period. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and The opposite party is directed to pay the remaining shortfall amount of Rs.1,350/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the short payment until actual realization.
O R D E R
Facts giving rise to filing of this complaint are that the complainant was employed as a Clerk with DAV Public School from 04.04.2024 through an outsourcing agency managed by Sh. Rishabh Thakur and he worked there until 15.03.2025. During the course of his employment, statutory Provident Fund and pension contributions were regularly deducted from his monthly salary and deposited with the OP. The Complainant’s EPF account was maintained under Establishment ID: HPSML22682700000010199 and Universal Account Number (UAN): 102069596042. According to the EPF Passbook accessed by the Complainant through the official EPFO portal, the total contribution received under the pension fund was recorded as Rs.14,230/-. Based on this record, the Complainant claimed entitlement to a withdrawal benefit or pension amount of the equivalent sum of Rs.14,230/-. However, the OP credited only a sum of Rs.12,750/- to his bank account, which is Rs.1,480/- less than what was recorded as accumulated contributions in the passbook. The Complainant asserts that he lodged multiple grievances and representations, but the OP failed to rectify the discrepancy. Feeling aggrieved by this negligent attitude on the part of the OP, the Complainant has approached this Commission seeking a direction to the OP to rectify and credit the correct amount of Rs.14,230/-, pay arrears of pension or withdrawal benefits along with interest @ 12% p.a. award compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment, and inconvenience and award litigation expenses amounting to Rs.20,000/-.
Upon notice, opposite party(s) appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objection of maintainability. EPFO maintains that it is a statutory body acting strictly within the boundaries of the EPF & MP Act, 1952. According to official records, the complainant was employed from April 4, 2024, to March 15, 2025. After accounting for a 16 day non-contributory period, the total pensionable service was calculated at 10 months and 11 days, which was rounded to 10 months for benefit calculation purposes, with a total pension fund contribution of Rs.14,230/-. The withdrawal benefits were processed in strict accordance with Para-14 of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, because the complainant did not meet the criteria for a monthly member pension. Although the weighted average of the complainant's wages was Rs.14,230/, the benefits were sanctioned based on the maximum wage ceiling of Rs.15,000/-, as per Table-D of the EPS, 1995. These provisions were clearly communicated to the complainant during his inquiries.
The complainant has filed rejoinder denying the contents of the reply filed by opposite party(s) and reiterating those of complaint.
The parties were called upon to produce their evidence in support of their contentions and accordingly the parties have adduced their respective evidence.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file carefully.
The opposite party has contended that the complainant’s total service was ten months and eleven days after deducting a sixteen-day non-contributory period. However, a perusal of the record reveals that the opposite party has completely failed to annex any documentary evidence, attendance logs, or official return records to substantiate this alleged non-contributory period. In the absence of such evidence, the bare assertions made by the opposite party cannot be accepted.
The undisputed facts establish that the complainant was continuously employed from April 4, 2024, until his exit on March 15, 2025. This entire period counts to exactly eleven months and twelve days of active service. The opposite party’s action in arbitrarily rounding this down to ten months is legally unsustainable and constitutes a factual error.
Under Table D of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, the withdrawal benefit is not a simple direct refund of the total cash contributions
