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

The petitioner, a retired Assistant Revenue Inspector of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bankimogra, District Korba, claimed outstanding employees’ contribution under the Employees’ Provident Fund amounting to ₹4,50,696, along with interest.

It was submitted that the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation had already transferred the amount to the Urban Administration and Development Department, and this assertion was not controverted by EPFO.

The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 06.07.2026 to the Director, Urban Administration and Development Department, seeking release of the amount.

The State undertook that the representation would be considered and decided by the competent authority within 45 days.

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation regarding release of the outstanding EPF contribution.

Whether, upon verification, the petitioner was entitled to release of the amount found payable along with admissible interest.

The Court applied the administrative-law principle that a competent authority must consider and decide a duly submitted representation in accordance with law, on its own merits, and after proper verification of the claim.

The Court further directed that any amount found legally payable should be released with admissible interest, while clarifying that it had not adjudicated the merits or entitlement of the petitioner’s claim.

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

The petitioner had placed on record a representation concerning the alleged EPF amount, and the asserted transfer of funds by EPFO to the Urban Administration and Development Department had not been disputed.

Since determination of the petitioner’s precise entitlement required verification by the competent authority, the Court refrained from directly ordering payment.

Instead, accepting the State’s undertaking, it directed respondent No. 2 to examine and decide the representation in accordance with law and, if the claim was verified, release the amount along with admissible interest within the prescribed period.

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

The Court expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.