‘Unfair trade practice’: Consumer commission pulls up EPFO over decade-long PF delay, orders Rs 50,000 compensation – The Times of India

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has held that the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) cannot cite software glitches or technical issues to justify a nearly 10-year delay in transferring provident fund (PF) accumulations from an employee’s old account to a new one.The commission partly allowed a complaint filed by employee Rajesh Garg and directed the EPFO to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation and litigation costs for “deficiency in service and unfair trade practice”, as reported by ET.The case started from Garg, who had joined Tech Mahindra in Pune in 2009, where a PF account was opened for him. After leaving the company, he joined Infosys in July 2010 and a new PF account was created, resulting in two separate EPFO accounts.In September 2010, Garg applied through Infosys for transfer of the PF balance from his earlier account. Despite repeated follow-ups, the transfer was not processed for years, prompting him to file an RTI application in September 2011 seeking details of the pending claim.The EPFO eventually transferred Rs 6.21 lakh to his new PF account on April 16, 2020. Garg, however, claimed that the amount payable should have been Rs 11.07 lakh and alleged that interest for several years had not been credited.The EPFO argued that the account had become inoperative from April 1, 2011, due to which interest for the period between 2012-13 and 2015-16 was not added. It also contended that technical problems in claim processing had delayed the transfer.During the proceedings, the EPFO admitted that the software system had failed to credit interest for 2010-11 because of a technical error. It subsequently transferred an additional Rs 64,841 towards pending interest and later credited another Rs 3.67 lakh after re-examining the records.The consumer commission noted that both additional payments were made only after the consumer complaint was filed in July 2021.Garg further claimed that an additional Rs 1.62 lakh was still due to him. However, the commission rejected this demand, observing that the calculation relied upon by him was not supported by any chartered accountant or expert opinion, while the EPFO had filed its own calculation sheet stating that all dues, including interest for the unclaimed credit period, had been settled.“In such circumstances, it is unsafe to hold that any amount is due to be transferred by the EPFO in the account of the complainant,” the commission said.On the issue of delay, however, the commission ruled against the EPFO, stating that the organisation had failed to produce any documentary evidence explaining the prolonged delay.“Hence, it is safe to hold that there is definitely an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly a decade on the part of OP (EPFO) in transferring the provident fund accumulations of the complainant, which in itself amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part,” the commission observed.The March 16, 2026 order directed the EPFO to pay Rs 50,000 within 60 days, failing which the amount would attract interest at 9 per cent per annum until realisation.