3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Apr 14, 2026 08:56 AM IST
Kerala High Court ruling on PF dues: A state-run corporation’s financial difficulties cannot justify the indefinite withholding of employees’ provident fund (PF) dues, the Kerala High Court has ruled, while directing the State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) to release pending PF advances to six employees within a strict three-month timeline.
Justice Viju Abraham, in an order dated April 10, 2026, noted that the petitioners included drivers, conductors, mechanics, and inspectors working at KSRTC’s Kattappana depot.

Justice Viju Abraham directed KSRTC to disburse the amounts applied for by the petitioners within three months.
“Whatever that may be, the amount legally due to the petitioners cannot be kept indefinitely only for the reason of the financial difficulties faced by the respondent-Corporation,” the Kerala High Court order read.
It was further observed that each of the petitioners was entitled to quantified sums ranging from approximately Rs 2.24 lakh to Rs 5.03 lakh, which had remained undisputed but unpaid.
Taking note that there was no dispute regarding entitlement and that the delay was solely on account of the corporation’s financial constraints, the court held that such dues cannot be withheld indefinitely once they are legally payable.
Accordingly, the Kerala High Court disposed of the petition by directing KSRTC to sanction and disburse the provident fund amounts applied for by the petitioners without delay, and in any case, within an outer limit of three months.
GPF must be shared with mother, wife
Previously, the Supreme Court allowed a woman’s plea to receive her share of the general provident fund (GPF) amount accumulated through her late husband’s employment despite his mother being the only nominee.
Story continues below this ad
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh found that the nomination form itself makes such a nomination void after the subscriber acquires a family, and allows the distribution of funds with all eligible family members in equal shares.
The bench, while allowing the wife’s plea, noted that the nomination was in favour of the late employee’s mother, but added, “The condition stipulated in the nomination form rendered such nomination, at the time of death, void.”
The apex court further said that the provident nomination form and its clause itself do not provide a better claim to the mother over the employee’s wife.
The husband, in this case, was a government official who married the petitioner in 2003 and subsequently nominated her as a recipient for other service benefits, but did not change the nominations for GPF.
Story continues below this ad
The Supreme Court noted that the wife had already received her share of GPF as per the previous order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and directed the release of the other half of the remaining funds to the employee’s mother.
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

