Central Information Commission
Ashok Gupta vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 25 February, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/635257/02963
File no.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/635257
In the matter of:
Ashok Gupta
... Appellant
VS
1. CPIO(Finance)/RPFC-I(WSU)
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Head Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066
2. Central Public Information Officer (Pensions),
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Head Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066
3. Central Public Information Officer,
RTI Cell, Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Regional Office, Delhi-Central Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
Plot #28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110052
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 25/06/2018
CPIO replied on : 04/07/2018
First appeal filed on : 10/08/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 28/09/2018
Second Appeal dated : 12/11/2018
Date of Hearing : 24/02/2020
Date of Decision : 24/02/2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Not present
1
Respondent: Shri Kumar Punit, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & CPIO, present in person.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Copy of noting/correspondence for implementation of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oct 2016 or thereafter directing enhancing the pension of twelve petitioners. Name, address of such petitioners and whether they were from exempted or unexempted establishments.
2. Copy of noting/correspondence and relevant rules/authority under which benefits under EPF Act Act or EPS , 1995 could be inferior to employees of exempted establishment than the employees of unexempted establishments.
3. Copy of notings/correspondence leading to non-implementation of stay order granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court on linking of aadhar card with bank account.
4. Copy of notings on e-mail of the appellant dated 25th May 2018 for acceptance of physical life certificate pending final judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on aadhar card.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO provided partial information on point No. 1 and no information on the rest of the points.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Commission is in receipt of an email from the appellant stating that he will not be in a position to attend the hearing and has requested to decide his case on merits.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply on points no. 1 & 2 was provided to the appellant by the concerned Section on 07.08.2018. He also submitted that since his Section dealt with the information sought on point no.4 only, the relevant information was provided to the appellant on 09.08.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the first reply of the CPIO dated 04.07.2018 whereby the CPIO, WSU Section transferred the RTI application to u/s 6(3) to the CPIO, Pension was totally improper as Section 2 File no.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/635257 6(3) of the RTI Act is applicable only where a part of the RTI application pertains to a different public Authority. The plain language of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act indicates that the public authority would transfer the application or such part of it to another public authority where the information sought is more closely connected with the functions of the other authority. Forwarding an application by a public authority to another public authority is not the same as a CPIO of a public authority sourcing information from within its own organisation. In the present case, undisputedly, certain information was available with another Section in the same organization but that in itself does not mean that the RTI application was to be transferred. The concerned CPIO could have sought assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from its holder. Thereafter, some information was provided to the appellant but that too was done in bits and pieces, which cannot be accepted as a proper way of replying under the RTI Act. Under such circumstances, the present CPIO, Shri Kumar Punit is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide a point-wise and consolidated reply to the appellant after taking assistance from the concerned holders u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The Commission also expresses its displeasure at the way the RTI applications are being handled by the respondent organisation. This clearly depicts that there is complete lack of knowledge of the provisions of the RTI Act within the respondent organisation.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO, Shri Kumar Punit is directed to give a consolidated and point-wise reply to the appellant alongwith copies of all the relevant annexures, free of cost to the appellant within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to educate the concerned officials including the CPIOs and the FAAs on the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of their duties and responsibilities so that such avoidable lapses do not occur again in future.3
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4