Jharkhand High Court Clarifies Omission of Interest as Error Apparent; Orders EPFO to Pay 12% Interest on Delayed Refund
Civil Review No. 16 of 2026
By Navya Tiwari
In DAV Nandraj Public School and Others v. Employees Provident Fund Organization, Civil Review No. 16 of 2026 (decided on 30.03.2026), the Jharkhand High Court, while exercising its review jurisdiction, held that the omission to expressly mention interest in an earlier appellate judgment, without any supporting reasoning, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
The dispute arose from a Letters Patent Bench judgment dated 16.06.2023, which directed refund of ₹25,93,021/- by the EPFO but remained silent on the issue of interest. The petitioners sought clarification, contending that the Appellate Tribunal had granted interest at 12% per annum for delayed refund, which had been affirmed by the Single Judge and was never set aside in appeal.
The EPFO opposed the review, arguing that the absence of any reference to interest in the operative portion implied its rejection. It further contended that, having accepted the principal amount, the petitioners were no longer “aggrieved” and thus lacked standing to seek review.
Rejecting these submissions, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Deepak Roshan undertook a contextual reading of the earlier judgment. The Court found that the appellate decision dealt only with issues relating to verification of dues and did not expressly or implicitly set aside the direction regarding interest. It held that treating mere omission as annulment, without any discussion or reasoning, was legally unsustainable and amounted to an error apparent warranting correction under review jurisdiction.
The Court further clarified that acceptance of the principal amount during pendency of proceedings does not amount to waiver of a claim for interest, particularly where such a claim has been consistently maintained.
Accordingly, the review petition was allowed, and the EPFO was directed to pay interest at 12% per annum for the period of delay, in accordance with the Tribunal’s original direction, within eight weeks.
