Central Information Commission
Sangeeta Gupta vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 8 September, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/637773
Ms. Sangeeta Gupta ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Lucknow
Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025
Date of Decision : 02.09.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.05.2024
PIO replied on : 29.05.2024
First Appeal filed on : 12.06.2024
First Appellate Order on : 12.07.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"I am writing to seek information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding my pending claim for EDLI benefits. My husband, Late Shri Lokesh Kumar Kesarwani, was an employee at Uttar Pradesh Rajya Karamchari Kalyan Nigam, posted at the High Court Depot, Prayagraj. He passed away in a train accident on 26 June 2023 at Manikpur Junction.
Despite several follow-ups, I have not received any updates regarding the claim. Kindly provide me with the following information: Status of EDLI Claim:
Current status of the EDLI benefits claim filed in the name of Late Shri Lokesh Kumar Kesarwani.
Details of any discrepancies or additional documents required to process the claim.
.Processing Timeline:
.Expected timeline for the processing and disbursement of the EDLI benefits. .Nodal Officer Details:
Contact details of the nodal officer handling the EDLI claim. .Reasons for Delay:
Specific reasons for the delay in processing the claim.Page 1 of 3
Details of the Deceased Employee:
Name: Late Shri Lokesh Kumar Kesarwani Department: Uttar Pradesh Rajya Karamchari Kalyan Nigam Last Posting: High Court Depot, Prayagraj."
The CPIO, Employees Provident Fund Organisation vide letter dated 29.05.2024 replied as under:-
"It is to bring kind notice that a letter no. 9668 dated 29.05.2024 sent to the establishment for clarification, copy of the same enclosed for you ready reference"
A letter dated 29.05.2024 from the EPFO to the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Karamchari Kalyan Nigam, the employer of the Appellant's deceased husband seeking verification of the fact as to whether the employee died while in service or away from his work.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.06.2024. The FAA vide order dated 12.07.2024 held as under:-
"It is to bring kind notice that claim Form 20 has already been settled on 01/01/2024 in respect of Smt. Sangeeta Gupta and on 16/05/2024 in respect of Ms. Sonal kesrwani. After that a letter no. 9668 dated 29.05.2024 was sent to the Area Enforcement Officer to seek clarification from the concerned establishment. Accordingly, Area Enforcement Officer has sought clarification from the establishment (copy of the same provided to establishment) but no satisfactory reply was received from establishment end. Further, it is to intimate that when establishment and Area Enforcement Officer reply/report will be received, accordingly claim will be settled."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 19.08.2025 has been received from the CPIO, EPFO, Lucknow reiterating the above facts.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Contacted over telephone Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar- CPIO/RPFC, Lucknow was present through video conference during hearing.
The Respondent averred that information available on record had been duly provided to the Appellant, in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. It was further informed by the Respondent that the Appellant had been duly paid the amount with respect to her claim mentioned in the RTI application about which she had sought information, including the EDLI claim paid on 07.03.2025. The Appellant did not state anything during the course of hearing.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing submissions of the Respondent, it is evident that information as available on record and defined under section 2(f) of Page 2 of 3 the RTI Act had been sent by the PIO, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The germane issue of outstanding claim to the Appellant has been duly processed and paid, though the same does not reflect in any of the records before the Commission. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to send a revised reply furnishing the updated status about the payment made to the Appellant stating the amount and date of payment clearly, within a week from the date of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report of the aforesaid direction before the Commission, within one week thereafter. In the given circumstances since appropriate information has been duly furnished by the Respondent and the cause behind filing of this appeal stands duly redressed, no further cause of action remains to be adjudicated in this case, under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)