The machine
said no.
The machine must say why.

To The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Chennai — 600006

Sir/Madam,

Re: Appeal against rejection of Form 19 claim — Claim ID [CLAIM_1] · UAN [UAN_1] · Member [PERSON_1]

I write in respect of the rejection communicated on 27 October 2026 with reason code E-KYC-014, to the effect that my name as it appears on my Aadhaar card (“PRIYA LAKSHMI”) does not match the EPFO member record (“PRIYA LAKSHMI S”), and that bank account [ACCT_1] (IFSC [IFSC_1]) stands unverified. I humbly submit that this rejection is legally unsustainable and factually erroneous, and request that it be set aside and the claim settled expeditiously.

1. Entitlement to withdrawal. Your kind records reflect that I ceased employment on 31 August 2026 and have remained unemployed since. I have thus completed a continuous period exceeding two months as of the date hereof, satisfying the condition precedent to Para 69(2) of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, which entitles a member who has ceased employment and has not obtained new employment within two months, on application, to “receive the full amount standing to his credit in the Fund.” [1] The statutory right has crystallised; the claim is not premature.

2. The “mismatch” is not a mismatch in law. The supposed discrepancy is the presence of the suffix “S” in the EPFO record and its omission on Aadhaar. EPFO’s own KYC correction circular states in terms that where the member name differs “merely by omission or addition of initials, suffixes, or minor spelling variance,” the difference “shall not be construed as a disqualification for settlement of claims,” provided identity is otherwise unambiguous and supported by documentary evidence. [3] My Aadhaar [AADHAAR_1], PAN [PAN_1], UAN [UAN_1], specimen signature, and cancelled cheque all unambiguously establish a single identity. The bank seeding error is likewise remediable by the same rectification and does not implicate entitlement.

3. Rectification vehicle. I hereby invoke the Joint Declaration mechanism under the aforesaid circular. A signed Joint Declaration (employer + member) correcting the member name to “PRIYA LAKSHMI” and confirming the bank account [ACCT_1] is enclosed, along with (i) a self-attested Aadhaar masked copy, (ii) a self-attested PAN card, and (iii) the cancelled cheque bearing my name in full. These documents remove every factual predicate for the rejection.

4. Mode and timeline of redress. This letter itself is also registered as a grievance on EPFiGMS. Under the grievance mandate governing EPFiGMS, every grievance “shall be examined by the concerned officer and a resolution shall be provided to the grievant within 30 days of registration of the grievance.” [2] I trust the matter will therefore be disposed of within that window.

5. Reservation of rights. Should no speaking order or settlement issue within 30 days, I shall, without prejudice, invoke my rights under the Right to Information Act, 2005, § 7(1), requiring disposal of my request “within thirty days of the receipt of the request,” [4] and thereafter pursue such further remedies as are available in law.

PRAYER. It is most humbly prayed that this Authority may be pleased to (i) set aside the rejection dated 27 October 2026 under reason code E-KYC-014; (ii) direct acceptance of the enclosed Joint Declaration and settlement of Claim ID [CLAIM_1] forthwith; and (iii) remit the full corpus of [AMOUNT_1] to the verified bank account [ACCT_1] (IFSC [IFSC_1]) within 30 days.

I remain at Your disposal for any further document. I have not suppressed any material fact. Thanking You in anticipation of an expeditious and sympathetic disposal.

Yours faithfully, [PERSON_1] UAN [UAN_1] · PAN [PAN_1] · Aadhaar [AADHAAR_1] [PHONE_1] · [EMAIL_1] Date: 27 October 2026