Jharkhand High Court Orders EPFO to Pay 12% Interest on Delayed Refund, Calls Omission in Appellate Judgment an “Error Apparent”
Civil Review No. 16 of 2026
By Rishika sinha
The Jharkhand High Court, while exercising its review jurisdiction, held that the earlier appellate judgment had not set aside the direction for payment of interest and clarified that omission to expressly mention such interest, without any supporting reasoning, amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record.
The dispute arose when the Petitioners sought clarification of a prior Letters Patent Bench judgment dated 16.06.2023, which had directed refund of ₹25,93,021/- by the EPFO but did not expressly deal with the issue of interest. The petitioners contended that the Appellate Tribunal had originally granted interest at 12% per annum in case of delayed refund, and that this direction had been affirmed by the Single Judge and never disturbed in appeal, thereby entitling them to the same. The EPFO resisted the plea, arguing that the absence of any mention of interest in the operative portion of the appellate judgment implied that such direction stood set aside. It was further contended that the petitioners, having accepted the principal amount, were no longer “aggrieved” and thus could not maintain the review.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Deepak Roshan rejected these submissions. The Court undertook a contextual reading of the earlier judgment and found that the appellate court had only addressed issues relating to verification of dues concerning certain employees, and had neither expressly nor implicitly set aside the direction for payment of interest. The Court observed that if the omission to mention interest were interpreted as setting aside that direction, such an interpretation would be unsustainable in the absence of any discussion or reasoning. This, the Court held, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record and is liable to be corrected in review jurisdiction.
The Court also clarified that acceptance of the principal amount during the pendency of proceedings does not amount to waiver of the claim for interest, especially where such a claim was consistently asserted. Accordingly, the review petition was allowed, and the EPFO was directed to pay interest at 12% per annum for the delayed period, in terms of the Tribunal’s original direction, within eight weeks.
