Kapileshwar Roy vs Pension Fund Regulatory And ... on 23 July, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Kapileshwar Roy vs Pension Fund Regulatory And ... on 23 July, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 22.06.2018 include non-receipt of the information raised by the appellant through Page 1 of 5 his RTI application dated 22.03.2018 and first appeal dated 28.04.2018. For clarity extract the RTI application are as under:

"During the uploading of legacy amount i.e. contribution accumulated up-to 31st March 2008 on date 03/04/2008 and 31/03/2008, contribution of two months i.e. October and September 2007 not uploaded by nodal office to NSDL and this amount on the appellant's appeal has been uploaded by nodal office on date 04.03.16. As a result there was a loss of units in my NPS account i.e. PRAN No. 110090366397 whereas his contribution was regular till date (from March 2007). Under RTI act 2005. In this regard provide the following information:

(i) Is letter file no. PFRDA/19/CG/1/28 dated 10/09/2015 and letter No. 2014/AC-II/21/6 Dated 07/12/2015 is applicable to above case?

(ii) If yes, then which authority will reimburse the loss?"

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 22.03.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 20.04.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 28.04.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 22.05.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 22.06.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 22.06.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and take necessary action as per sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

Page 2 of 5

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.04.2018 furnished point-wise reply to the appellant. The FAA vide his order dated 22.05.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Vikas Kumar Singh, General Manager and CPIO, Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority, Delhi, attended the hearing through audio conference. 5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he sought information regarding reimbursement of loss of fund value under National Pension System (NPS) due to delayed uploading of legacy amount. However, he stated that no satisfactory response was received from the respondent so far.

5.2. The respondent while defending their reply dated 20.04.2018 inter alia submitted that the appellant had referred two letters/circular dated 10.09.2015 and 07.12.2015 and sought aforesaid information. They further submitted that by the letter dated 10.09.2015 the PFRDA had clarified on a case sent to the Authority from Railway Board, wherein contribution under NPS were erroneously credited in an incorrect permanent retirement account number (PRAN) which was later rectified through Error Rectification Model (ERM). Further, they stated that interpretation of circular dated 07.12.2015 regarding reimbursement of loss of fund value due to delayed in uploading was not correct as such clarification was issued by the PFRDA in a particular case and it was not applicable to the appellant's case as claimed by the appellant. They also claimed that detailed information had already been furnished by the respondent vide their letter dated 20.04.2018.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that firstly the information sought does not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, secondly the appellant has not been seeking information but a clarification on one letter dated 10.09.2015 from Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority whether it was being implemented by the Railways as the Page 3 of 5 uploading of legacy amount was done by the Ministry of Railways and not by Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority. Moreover, if there is any delay in uploading or possible loss to the appellant the same is not attributable to Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority. Perusal of the reply given by the respondent reveals that due reply has already been given and there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 13.07.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority B-14/A, CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI BHAWAN, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, KATWARIA SARAI, NEWDELHI-110016 THE F.A.A, PENSION FUND REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, B-14/A, CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI BHAWAN, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, KATWARIA SARAI, NEW DELHI-110016 KAPILESHWAR ROY Page 4 of 5 Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission