Central Information Commission
Satish Tyagi vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 11 July, 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/2024/118027
Shri Satish Tyagi ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi
Date of Hearing : 09.07.2025
Date of Decision : 09.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.01.2024
PIO replied on : 06.02.2024
First Appeal filed on : 16.02.2024
First Appellate Order on : 15.04.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 07.06.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
1. "Provide certified copy of the order vide No-E/Ds//23958/7A/3368 dated 16-11-2022 passed by the RPFC of Regional office Delhi(North) in the matter of proceedings u/s 7 of Securitrans India Private Limited.
2. Provide certified copies of the wage/salary registers, overtime registers of the employees from 1/2014 to 12/2022.
3. Provide certified copies of Form 26 AS, Forms 11 of the employees, ITRS from 2014 to 2017 submitted by the management and replies of the management of the Securitrans India Private Limited in 7A inquiry. Also copy of counter replies submitted by the Union.
4. Provide Squad report s submitted before the RPFC in 7 A inquiry in the said case by AEO.
5. Provide DR reports submitted to the RPFC in above 7A inquiry and also dates on which DR visited establishment for verification of documents with the name of DR and copy of direction given to the DR by the competent authority for the same.
6. Provide copy of challan, ECR submitted by the management of Securitrans India private limited for the period from 1/2014 to 12/2022.
7. Provide copy of challan of amount deposited by the company after order of the RPFC in the 7A inquiry order.Page 1 of 3
8. Provide copy of AEO report dated 8-9-22,13-9-22 and 21-09-22 submitted in the said 7A inquiry.
9. Provide copies of authority letters submitted by the company representatives in the said 7A inquiry.
10. Provide copy of ex parte order issued by the RPFC in the said 7A inquiry and thereafter case was reopened and again 2nd order was passed by the RPFC.
11. Provide name of the RPFC who passed ex- parte order and who passed final order in the 7A inquiry of Securitrans India Private Limited.
12. Provide copy of eligibility register submitted by the management of the company from 2014 to dec.2022.
13. Provide copy of the complaint filed by the union on which 7A inquiry was initiated.
14. Provide list of the employees who were benefitted with EPF amount individually after decision of 7A inquiry in this case
15. Provide list of the establishments other than above said Securitrans India Private Limited in which 7A inquiry was completed by Shri Brijesh Mishra RPFC during 01/22 to 12/2022.
16. Also allow inspection of the records/documents of the SIPL company submitted to your office for disposal of the 7A inquiry.
17. Is there any provision to split minimum wages declared by the Govt to evade/pf contribution on the Minimum wages as PF wage if yes, provide rule/notification.
18. What components are not covered under PF wage."
The CPIO/Regional P.F. Commissioner-I, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Delhi vide letter dated 06.02.2024 replied as under:-
"Point 1:-Information sought is financial information related to third party information and hence cannot be provided to the applicant as per provision of Section 8 (1) (j) & Section 11 of the RTI Act. The department has the information of establishment in judicial capacity and would indeed cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of third party. Also, the appellant has not proved (with documentary evidence) any 'large public interest' which would warrant the disclosure of the information.
Point 2 to 9 and 12 to 16:-Refer to as 1 above.
Point 10 and 11:-No such order has been passed.
Point 17:-Doesn't pertain to this office (RO, Delhi North) Point 18:-As per the definition of basic wages under EPF & MP Act, 1952 under section 2 (ii) (b) basic wage does not include (1) the cash value of any food concession, (11) any dearness allowance (that is to say, all cash payments by whatever name called paid to an employee on account of a rise in the cost of living), house-rent allowance, overtime allowance, bonus commission or any other similar allowance payable to the employee in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment,
(iii) any presents made by the employer."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.02.2024. The FAA vide order dated 15.04.2024 held as under:-
Page 2 of 3"..........CPIO is directed to provide the requisite documents related to the RTI to the appellant within 07 working days under intimation to the undersigned. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Sh. Satish Tyagi is disposed of."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar represented the Appellant Respondent: Shri Saurabh Chaturvedi - APFC, EPFO Regional Office: Delhi North was present during hearing.
The Appellant's representative averred that information had not been provided by the Respondent to the satisfaction. The Respondent stated that the information permissible under the RTI Act has been duly sent to the Appellant from available records. However, personal information which related to third party viz. employees of the specific company named by the Appellant had been denied from disclosure to protect privacy of the individuals. Moreover no larger public interest would be served by furnishing such personal information related to third party individuals to the Appellant.
Decision Upon examining the records of the case and hearing the averments of the Appellant, it is noted that the information sought by the Appellant relates to third party individuals and disclosure of such information would certainly compromise the privacy of the said individuals. Hence denial of the information by the PIO under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is duly upheld. The Appellant has failed to demonstrate any larger public interest for obtaining such information, under the RTI Act. In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the PIO's reply is legally appropriate and no further adjudication is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off as such.
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)