Competent authority must decide the EPF claim and release verified dues with admissible interest within 45 days.

The petitioner, a retired Assistant Revenue Inspector of Nagar Palika Parishad, Akaltara, claimed that an outstanding EPF employee-contribution amount of ₹2,71,341, along with interest, was payable to him.

He contended that the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation had already transferred the amount to the Urban Administration and Development Department.

The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 6 July 2026 before the Director, Urban Administration and Development Department, seeking release of the amount.

Before the High Court, the State agreed that the representation would be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within 45 days.

Whether the Director, Urban Administration and Development Department, should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation concerning the alleged outstanding EPF amount?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to immediate release of ₹2,71,341 with interest, or whether the claim first required verification and determination by the competent authority?

Where the claim involves factual verification or determination by the competent administrative authority, the Court may direct that authority to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, on its own merits, and within a specified period.

The authority must verify the claim before releasing any amount and may grant only such interest as is legally admissible.

The Court did not adjudicate the underlying entitlement and expressly preserved the authority’s obligation to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

The Court noted the petitioner’s assertion that EPFO had transferred the disputed contribution to the Urban Administration and Development Department, a fact stated to be neither controverted nor disputed by counsel for EPFO.

However, because the precise entitlement and amount payable required verification, the Court did not order immediate payment.

Instead, it accepted the State’s submission that the competent authority would examine the representation and directed respondent No. 2 to decide it on its merits, after due verification of the claim.

The direction was therefore administrative and procedural rather than an adjudication of the petitioner’s substantive entitlement.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 6 July 2026 in accordance with law and on its own merits.

After verifying the claim, the authority was directed to release the amount found payable, together with admissible interest, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.