Special CBI court convicts seven in EPFO bogus-pension case

What the Record Shows

A Delhi court convicted seven people on 6 June 2026 for a long-running racket of fictitious pension claims against the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation. The Court of the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), CBI-19, at the Rouse Avenue District Courts in Delhi, presided over by Special Judge Atul Krishna Agrawal, held the seven guilty in CBI vs Tarun Kumar Goel and Others, CC No. 41/2011, arising from RC No. EOU-I-2004/A-0002/CBI/ND registered by the CBI's Economic Offences Unit-I.

Per the judgment, the convicted are Bhupender Kumar, a Lower Division Clerk at the EPFO (accused A-2), and six private persons: Ravinder Sharma, Rajeev Kumar, Pradeep Puri, Amit Tanwar, Ashish Kumar Sharma and Ashish Mittal. The court recorded convictions under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Three of the ten people originally accused did not live to see the verdict. Tarun Kumar Goel, the EPFO clerk named as the first accused, along with Joginder Singh and Prem Prakash Mittal, died during the trial, and the court recorded that proceedings against them stood abated. They were never convicted, and nothing in the judgment records a finding of guilt against them.

The CBI alleged, and the court found, that 175 bogus pension claims worth Rs 87,17,654 were processed, causing an actual loss of Rs 52,71,589 to the EPFO after some cheques were stopped or never encashed. The case rested on the evidence of 192 prosecution witnesses.

How It Worked

According to the judgment, the scheme operated out of the EPFO's Accounts-X Section and turned on insider access to the claims-processing chain rather than on any senior authority. The CBI's case was that two Lower Division Clerks, the lowest dealing rank in the office, processed pension claims in the names of employees who did not exist.

The phantom members were attributed to two exempted establishments whose provident-fund accounts the office handled: M/s Information Technologies (India) Ltd, PF Code DL/5883, and M/s Indian Road Construction Corporation Ltd, PF Code DL/7148. Per the prosecution case accepted by the court, more than 170 fictitious claimants were allotted account numbers beyond the range of the establishments' genuine employees, so that the fake entries sat outside the legitimate roll.

The documents that a real claim would generate were fabricated. The CBI alleged that Form-7(PS) and Form-3(PS) submissions, worksheets and ledger cards were created with forged signatures and impressions of fake rubber stamps, giving each bogus claim the paper trail of a settled one. Cheques issued against the fictitious claims were then routed, per the judgment, into bank accounts supplied by the private accomplices, withdrawn and shared.

The procedural history is as striking as the mechanism. The offences fall in the 2001 to 2004 period; the FIR was registered on 21 May 2004; the chargesheet was filed on 19 December 2005; charges were framed on 7 August 2008; and judgment came only on 6 June 2026. The matter took more than two decades from first information to verdict, a span over which three accused died and the evidence of 192 witnesses had to be recorded and tested.

Who Lost Money

The loser here was the pension corpus itself, not any individual pensioner. Because the claims were raised in the names of non-existent members, no genuine retiree was denied a benefit, and no real person's account was drained. The money instead flowed out of the Employees' Pension Scheme fund, which is built from the contributions of actual members and their employers.

The court distinguished between the sum claimed and the sum lost. Of the Rs 87,17,654 sought across the 175 bogus claims, the actual loss to the EPFO was Rs 52,71,589, the difference reflecting cheques that were stopped or never credited before the money left the system. That the loss was smaller than the attempt is a function of the fraud being caught partway, not of restraint by those involved.

In a pooled scheme, a loss to the corpus is ultimately a cost borne collectively by contributing members, which is why the offence is treated as one against a public fund and prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act alongside the ordinary forgery and cheating provisions.

Where It Stands Now

On the record reviewed on 29 July 2026, the conviction of the seven surviving accused recorded on 6 June 2026 stands. The quantum of sentence is a distinct stage that follows the finding of guilt, and the judgment reviewed sets out the convictions rather than the terms of imprisonment or fine; those particulars should be read from the court's order on sentence.

A conviction by a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act may be appealed to the High Court of Delhi, and long custodial sentences are commonly challenged. On the records available, no appellate order disturbing the 6 June 2026 convictions could be located, so any appeal, if filed, would be pending.

As for the three accused who died during the trial, the proceedings against them abated without any finding. A person against whom a case abates on death is not a convict; the presumption of innocence in their case was never displaced, and it would be wrong to describe any of the three as having been found guilty.

What It Means

The case is a useful corrective to the idea that large institutional frauds need senior insiders. Here the two public servants in the dock were Lower Division Clerks, and what mattered was their position in the processing chain, not their rank. Controls in payout systems work only when the person who creates a claim cannot also approve and release it; where one desk can originate a fictitious member, fabricate the forms and see a cheque issued, the ledger will not defend itself.

The matter also shows how a pooled retirement fund absorbs a fraud that no single member ever sees on a statement. For an ordinary saver the practical takeaway is about verification of one's own record rather than fear: EPFO members can check their passbook and Universal Account Number entries through the official EPFO portal, and pension and provident-fund balances can be sanity-checked against a neutral tool such as Oquilia's NPS and pension calculator to understand how a genuine corpus should accumulate over a career. Readers can follow related matters on the enforcement archive, including the Special CBI Court's conviction of Janardhana Reddy in the OMC mining case.

FAQ

Were all ten accused convicted?

No. Seven of the ten were convicted on 6 June 2026. The other three, including the first accused, an EPFO clerk, died during the trial, and the court recorded that proceedings against them abated. They were never convicted, and the presumption of innocence in their case was never displaced.

What exactly did the court find?

Per the judgment in CC No. 41/2011, the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) at Delhi convicted seven accused of processing 175 fictitious pension claims worth Rs 87.17 lakh against the EPFO, causing an actual loss of about Rs 52.71 lakh, under IPC provisions for conspiracy, cheating, forgery and falsification of accounts read with the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Did any real pensioner lose money?

No individual pensioner lost money. The CBI's case, accepted by the court, was that the claims were raised in the names of employees who did not exist, so the loss fell on the Employees' Pension Scheme corpus rather than on any genuine member's account.

Can the conviction be appealed?

Yes. An appeal against a conviction by a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act lies to the High Court of Delhi. On the records reviewed on 29 July 2026, no appellate order disturbing the convictions could be located, so any appeal, if filed, would be pending.

How can an EPFO member check their own record?

Members can view their contributions and service history through their Universal Account Number on the official EPFO member portal and passbook facility. Reconciling employer contributions against payslips each year is the simplest way to spot an entry that does not belong.

Where can I read the official judgment?

The full text of CBI vs Tarun Kumar Goel and Others, CC No. 41/2011, decided on 6 June 2026, is available on Indian Kanoon and sets out the charges, the accused, the amounts and the procedural history in detail.

This report is based on the judgment of the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Delhi, dated 6 June 2026 in CBI vs Tarun Kumar Goel and Others, reviewed on 29 July 2026.