Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 20 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Asiatic Society’s Employees Union & Anr. (WPA 6229 of 2023)
  • Respondents: Union of India, Ministry of Culture, Asiatic Society (as autonomous institution), EPF Authority, and others.
  • Nature of proceeding: Constitutional writ jurisdiction (appellate side) challenging the restriction of employer’s EPF contribution to Rs 15,000 per month.
  • Background:
  • Service rules of the Society (effective 1 Dec 1998) under Clause 28 provided pension, gratuity, family pension and General Provident Fund benefits as for Central Government employees.
  • Office memoranda (2 Dec 1997, 3 Sept 2008, 13 Jan 2017) directed PF deductions on the revised pay structure.
  • Office order dated 18 May 2001 (Regulation VII) allowed employer and employee contributions at 12 % of salary, effective May 2001.
  • Ministry of Culture communication dated 25 Jan 2023 limited EPF employer contribution to Rs 15,000 wage ceiling, directing immediate cessation of excess contributions.
  • Respondent 2 (Asiatic Society) issued Office Order No. 6 Feb 2023 confirming the Rs 15,000 ceiling.
  • CAG audit Report No. 4 of 2018 identified excess employer contribution of approx ₹7 crore (12 % of total pay instead of ceiling) made without Ministry approval.
  • Multiple Ministry letters (04 May 2017, 13 Jun 2017, …, 25 Jan 2023, 8 Feb 2023) repeatedly instructed the Society to stop excess contributions and recover the excess.
  • EPF Authority argued that breach of EPF provisions is a penal offence and may invoke inquiry under Sections 7A and 14B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952.
  • Petitioners relied on Sections 26.6, 26A(2), 29(1), 31 and 12 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, asserting a joint request under 26.6 permits contributions above the ceiling.
  • Respondent 1 (Union of India) contended that SR 28 of the Society’s service rules was not approved by the Government; therefore the Society acted ultra vires, violating the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules 1961 and Delegation of Financial Powers Rules 2024.
  • Key statutory references cited:
  • Section 26.6 (joint request for contribution above ceiling),
  • Section 26A(2) (mandatory ceiling of Rs 15,000),
  • Section 29(1) (contribution rates),
  • Section 31 (employer’s share not to be deducted),
  • Section 12 (prohibition on reducing wages due to PF liability).

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the Society’s employer contribution exceeding the statutory ceiling was unlawful and that SR 28 had not been approved, rendering the Society’s action ultra vires.
  • The petition was found to be without merit and was dismissed.
  • All interim orders, if any, were vacated.
  • All applications connected with the writ were disposed of.
  • The Court directed that a certified copy of the judgment be issued to the parties upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: EPF compliance, Government grant oversight, Judicial dismissal