Central Information Commission
Mr.A S Mahadevan vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 14 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001433/8520
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001433
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. A.S Mahadevan
1854, 6th A Main, D Block
Second Stage, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore- 560010
Respondent : Public Information Officer & Regional
PF Commissioner-II Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour, Gov. of India 13, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, Bangalore-560025 RTI application filed on : 17/08/2009 PIO replied : 12/10/2009 First appeal filed on : 03/10/2009 First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 13/11/2009 Second Appeal received on : 15/12/2009 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. Furnish the status of recovery of dues of The employer has remitted the dues upto 3/09. From KN/16130 4/09 the establishment is only remitting the minimum administrative charges.
2. Furnish action has been initiated against 7A under EPF Act has been initiated for assessment of the employer for defaulting on payment. dues & the employer has remitted the dues.
3. Kindly inform about the action which has Non applicable since action has not been taken.
been initiated, if no then reason therefore etc.
4. Details of OB, remittances etc. The details upto 2006-07 has already been furnished.
5. Furnish information regarding the If the employer makes default in the payment of any remedies to the subscriber if the employer contribution to the EPF, penal damages are levied @ delays payment causing loss of interest to 17%, 22%, 27% & 37% depending on the period of the subscriber. default apart from levy of interest u/s 7Q. However there is no loss to the subscriber since up to date interest will be credited to their account.
Ground for the First Appeal:
No reply from CPIO.
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order:
Information provided by CPIO is modified and supplied to the Applicant. Ground for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal on the following grounds: He had sought the details of the opening balance, remittances, interest and closing balance in his PF account for each of the year from the date of opening of account till date of RTI application. The years in reference are 2006-0], 2007-08 and 2008-09. The CPIO has provided the information as follows:
a. For 2006-07: provided b. For 2007-08: Partially provided. The detail of transfer-in of PF balance from another PF office
(Chennai) is provided, whereas the information on the monthly remittances from the employer at Bangalore has been denied. The CPIO himself has confirmed (in his letter at Sl#1, vide enclosure#4) that the employer has remitted the dues till Mar 2009, which means that the CPIO has the information but has denied the same to him.
c. For 2008-09: No information provided. As explained at para 3(b) above, the details are available with the PA but the CPIO has denied the same to him.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a perusal of the papers it appears that the detail of the monthly remittances of employer at Bangalore had not been provided. It also appears that the information for the period 2008-09 was also not provided. The PIO has not given any reasons for not providing these.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information about the remittances of the Bangalore employer and also the information for the period 2008-09 to the appellant before 05 August 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 10 August 2010 at 11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 14 July 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ARG)