The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has ruled against the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) for a nearly 10-year delay in transferring provident fund accumulations from an employee's old account to a new one. According to reports from The Times of India, the commission held that EPFO cannot cite software glitches or technical issues to justify this prolonged delay, stating there was definitely an inordinate and unexplained delay that amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The search volume for "EPFO compensation 10 year delay" has crossed 50,000+ searches in the past 24 hours, highlighting the widespread impact of this ruling.
The case involves employee Omesh Garg, who joined Tech Mahindra in Pune in 2009 and opened a PF account. After leaving the company, he joined Infosys in July 2010 and created a new PF account, resulting in two separate EPFO accounts. As reported by The Times of India, Garg applied through Infosys in September 2010 for transfer of his PF balance from the earlier account, but the transfer was not processed for years despite repeated follow-ups. The EPFO eventually transferred ₹6.21 lakh to his new PF account on April 16, 2020, though Garg claimed the amount should have been ₹11.07 lakh. Garg filed an RTI application in 2011 and followed up repeatedly, but EPFO took no action for nearly a decade.
During proceedings, the EPFO admitted that its software system had failed to credit interest for 2010-11 due to a technical error. According to The Times of India, the EPFO subsequently transferred an additional ₹64,841 towards pending interest and later credited another ₹3.67 lakh after re-examining records. The commission noted that both additional payments were made only after the consumer complaint was filed in July 2021, with Garg still claiming an additional ₹1.62 lakh was due. The EPFO's defence of technical difficulties was rejected by the court for lack of evidence.
The March 16, 2026 order directed the EPFO to pay ₹50,000 compensation and litigation costs within 30 days, failing which the amount would attract interest at 9 per cent per annum until realisation. As reported by The Times of India, the commission rejected Garg's demand for additional amounts, observing that his 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 all dues had been settled. The commission also directed EPFO to pay litigation costs for the unfair trade practice. The ruling sets a clear precedent that EPFO can be held legally accountable for delays, with employees now able to claim compensation for delayed PF withdrawals, transfers, or EPS pension claims.
