IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.33014 of 2025 Hemraj Adjuad & Ors. …. Petitioners Mr. N. Lenka, Advocate -versus- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Odisha, BBSR and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. U. Mishra, Advocate for O.P. No.2 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 03.02.2026 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: - “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to admit the writ application, issue rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ/writs as deem fit and proper calling upon the Opposite Parties to show-cause as to why the order dtd. 16.10.2025 passed by the Opp. Party No.2 vide annexure-9 so far as disposing of the representation of the petitioner on the plea that, the compliance of provisions of EPF and MP Act 1952 is time consuming process, shall not be quashed and why the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to disbursed the EPF amount/deposit of the petitioners p. 2 p. 2 from their respective EPF accounts immediately with interest thereon. In the event of the opposite parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient cause said rule be made absolute. And further be pleased to pass any order/orders direction/directions as deem fit and proper.” 4. It is contended that pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1743 of 2025, claim of the petitioners for release of their EPF dues was not released nor the same was disposed of vide the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 under Annexure-10. It is contended that since petitioners have admittedly some EPF dues lying with the Organisation, the manner in which order at Annexure-10 has been passed, is not sustainable in the eye of law and Opp. Party/EPF Organisation, be directed to release the EPF dues as due and admissible to the petitioners. 5. Basing on the instruction, learned counsel appearing for the EPF Organisation contended that because of non-cooperation of Opp. Party Nos.6 and 7/employer of the petitioners, the Organisation is not in a position to release the EPF dues as due and admissible. It is however fairly contended that steps are being taken to release the EPF dues as due and admissible to the petitioners by taking appropriate action against Opp. Party Nos.6 and 7 in accordance with law. p. 3 p. 3 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, directs Opp. Party No.2 to do the needful with regard to consideration of the petitioners grievance which was disposed of without releasing the benefit vide the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 under Annexure-10. Opp. Party No.2 is directed to take a fresh decision on the petitioners claim in accordance with law within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Jyoti