.png)
1 hour ago
16
EPFO compensation 10-year delay: A man named Garg was employed with Tech Mahindra in Pune on February 27, 2009. His office had opened a provident fund (PF) account for him. He resigned from Tech Mahindra on February 27, 2009, and stayed unemployed for some time. Later, Mr Garg joined Infosys on July 19, 2010, where another PF account was opened by the HR department. This resulted in him having two PF accounts with EPFO. Now, the actual problem starts.
EPFO compensation 10-year delay: The Struggle behind the fight!
To solve this issue, Garg applied in September 2010, through his current employer, Infosys, to transfer the accumulated funds from his previous PF account with Tech Mahindra to his current PF account. This is how the issue was highlighted and solved later. Let’s get into the story to learn about it.
Amid the repeated efforts, there was no response from the EPFO regarding his PF transfer, Gard said. Later, Garg filed an RTI application on September 9, 2011, expecting details on the status of his transfer application.
To which the EPFO replied on November 9, 2011, to his RTI, initiating a prolonged exchange of correspondence between the two parties. Finally, on April 16, 2020, the EPFO transferred Rs 6.21 lakh to Garg's new PF account. However, Garg argued that, based on his calculations, he should receive Rs 11.07 lakh.
In response to his objection, the EPFO stated that interest payments had been discontinued because the account was classified as inoperative with effect from April 1, 2011. Consequently, no interest was credited to Garg’s account for the period from 201-13 to 2015-16.
Alleging a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the EPFO, Garg filed a consumer complaint before the Chandigarh District Commission on July 22, 2021, seeking transfer of the outstanding balance along with interest, compensation, and litigation costs.
EPFO compensation 10-year delay: Chandigarh Consumer Commission view
The Chandigarh Consumer Commission ruled that the EPFO cannot use software issues as an excuse for a decade-long delay in transferring an employee's PF funds. Despite the EPFO's claims of technical difficulties, the commission found an inordinate and unexplained delay, amounting to a deficiency in service. The EPFO was directed to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation and litigation costs.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, recently held that the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) cannot cite software-related issues to justify a delay of nearly ten years in transferring funds from an employee’s old provident fund (PF) account to the new one.
Mr Garg continued struggling. He refiled the RTI appeal with the competent authority. However, the EPFO ignored it and did not pay the balance amount/interest to him.
After the consumer case was filed, the EPFO acknowledged that while Garg had informed them regarding the delay in PF transfer, they could not process it due to some ongoing technical difficulties with the claim processing.
The EPFO stated that Garg's claim was settled on February 24, 2020, and that Rs 6.21 lakh was transferred to his current PF account at Infosys. However, the system's software application did not credit the interest for the financial year 2010-11 due to a technical error.
The interest amount of 64,841 for that financial year (2010-11) was transferred to Garg's current PF account.
The EPFO re-examined the records and later credited the account with an updated interest amount of Rs 3.67 lakh, including the UCD (unclaimed credit) period.
On March 16, 2026, Garg partly won the case in the consumer commission. Advocate Omesh Garg and Advocate Devinder Kumar represented him.
Chandigarh Consumer Commission Order
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, observed that both parties acknowledged that during the pendency of the consumer complaint, the EPFO re-examined the matter and transferred an additional Rs 3.67 lakh on April 3, 2022, and Rs 64,841 on June 7, 2022, to Garg’s new PF account with Infosys.
However, Garg contended that the EPFO still owed him Rs 1.62 lakh, while the EPFO argued that his calculations were incorrect and that no further amount was payable.
The consumer commission said that Garg, in his support, has relied upon a calculation sheet, but the same appears to have been prepared by the complainant/his counsel only and not by a Chartered Accountant (CA) or some expert.
On the other hand, the EPFO has contradicted the same by filing their calculation sheet (and stated that the complainant's case was re-examined and up-to-date interest (including the UCO period) was credited to his account, and nothing is due to him.
In view of the above discussion, the consumer commission held that the complaint partly succeeds and is accordingly partly allowed. The EPFO was directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs 50,000 to the complainant towards harassment suffered and litigation expenses.
The commission further ordered that the EPFO must comply with the order within 60 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Failing this, the awarded amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order until actual realisation.
English (US) ·