Authorities must decide and disburse eligible GPF and other retiral dues within three months.

The petitioner’s husband, who was employed as an Assistant Revenue Inspector with the Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, died on 24 February 2021.

The respondents sanctioned and fixed the petitioner’s family pension by order dated 20 September 2021, which she was receiving. However, the General Provident Fund (GPF) amount had not been disbursed.

The Municipal Corporation had calculated the payable GPF amount at ₹6,79,599.

The petitioner therefore sought a direction for release of the GPF amount with 12% interest from the date of her husband’s death until actual payment.

The respondents submitted that the competent authority would consider the claim and release the amount if found payable, in accordance with law.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s claim for unpaid GPF and other admissible retiral dues and take a decision in accordance with law?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to immediate release of the calculated GPF amount of ₹6,79,599 with 12% interest for the period of delay?

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court applied the general administrative-law principle that a competent authority must consider and decide a claim for retiral dues in accordance with law and within a reasonable time.

Where the entitlement to retiral benefits requires verification or a formal decision by the competent authority, the High Court may issue a limited mandamus directing consideration and disbursement of amounts found legally payable, without itself determining disputed entitlement.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s family pension had already been sanctioned and that the GPF amount had allegedly been calculated by the Municipal Corporation.

However, the respondents stated that the claim still required consideration by the competent authority and that payment would be made if found payable.

In view of the nature of the grievance and the respondents’ undertaking, the Court refrained from directly ordering payment of the claimed amount or awarding the requested interest.

Instead, it considered it appropriate to require the respondents to examine the petitioner’s claim and disburse all retiral dues to which she was legally entitled.

The Court did not itself grant the claim for ₹6,79,599 or the requested 12% interest, leaving those matters to be determined by the competent authority in accordance with law.