Authorities must decide the pending GPF-release representation by a reasoned, speaking order within four weeks.

The applicant initially joined the Delhi Energy Development Agency (DEDA) as a Chowkidar on daily wages and was regularised in service on 19 June 1993.

After DEDA was wound up and he was declared surplus on 5 October 2004, he was redeployed through the Services Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, and ultimately joined the NCC Department on 17 November 2006.

A GPF account was allotted to him by the Principal Accounts Office on 27 March 2009, and GPF subscriptions were regularly deducted from his salary.

The respondents subsequently converted his GPF account into an NPS account by office order dated 20 October 2023. The applicant challenged that action in O.A. No. 3557/2023, in which status quo was directed to be maintained on 19 November 2023.

The applicant retired from service on 31 July 2025. Although his gratuity and leave encashment were released, his accumulated GPF amount was not paid.

He submitted applications dated 8 July 2025 and 27 April 2026, followed by a representation dated 28 July 2026 seeking release of the GPF amount, but no decision was communicated.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation seeking release of his accumulated GPF amount by a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether the Tribunal should directly order release of the GPF amount with interest, or confine relief to consideration and disposal of the pending representation.

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers the Central Administrative Tribunal to adjudicate service-related grievances.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that where a representation concerning a service claim remains pending, the competent authority must consider and decide it in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a prescribed period.

Since the Tribunal was dealing only with the applicant’s limited prayer at the admission stage, it expressly refrained from adjudicating the merits of the underlying entitlement to GPF or interest.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had a GPF account from which deductions had been made, had retired without receiving the accumulated amount, and had submitted a pending representation seeking its release.

However, because the respondents’ counsel sought time to obtain instructions and the applicant agreed to relief limited to consideration of his representation, the Tribunal did not determine whether the applicant was substantively entitled to payment of the GPF amount or interest.

Applying the principle requiring administrative authorities to pass a reasoned and speaking order on pending representations, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 28 July 2026 and decide it strictly in accordance with law within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The respondents were directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 28 July 2026 regarding release of the final GPF amount by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.