Central Information Commission
R H Managoli vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 13 May, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2023/113089
Shri R H Managoli ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Employees Provident Fund Organization, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 09.05.2024
Date of Decision : 09.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.09.2022
PIO replied on : 02.11.2022, 21.11.2022, 29.12.2022
First Appeal filed on : 11.11.2022, 26.11.2022
First Appellate Order on : 10.01.2023, 13.01.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 21.03.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.09.2022 seeking information on following points:-
Information sought (Part -I) a. "How EPFO sources funds for running the establishment? Provide detailed info.
b. Whether Central Government gives any budgetary/financial support to run EPFO? YES/NO c. Whether EPFO staff are paid salary as per Central Pay Scales (CPC) and DA, DP, IR with periodical revisions paid as and when become due and are paid accordingly? YES/NO d. (i) Are EPFO staff paid salary allowances and pension as applicable to Central Government employees?
(ii) Are EPFO employees government employees (public servants). ?
(iii) Are such salary, pensionary benefits paid by EPFO from any government funding assistance, if not what is the source of funds for such pension payment?
e. Whether, for the purpose of Provident Fund benefit EPFO staff are also covered under EPF Act 1952 or GPF or CPF Act? Or any other PF scheme? Please give details.
Page 1 of 6f. Are EPFO staff covered under EPS 1995 scheme? (Because as per EPFO Advertisement then published in News Papers (1994), the benefits under EPS 1995 were claimed to be better than Government pension by EPFO?, (This information is obtained from EPFO advertisement Courtesy Mr. PK Kohli's EPS Sewa Group II Facebook Media)?
g. And, if so, (EPS 95 vis-à-vis Govt. pension scheme being better) whether any option was given to EPFO staff to join EPS 1995 on publication of this Advertisement ? If yes, how many opted for EPS 1995 scheme? Please give numbers of such employees who opted for EPS 1995 h. What is the minimum pension paid to retirees of EPFO in group A, B, C and D respectively per month (if CPC scales & periodical revisions are applicable to EPFO, if Pay, allowances, pension are at par with Central Government)? Quote the amount at present. On Representative basis. i. And other related information."
Information sought (Part-II)
(a) EPFO, Dwaraka Office, New Delhi took cognizance of complaint, and in March/April 2014, a sum of approx. Rs.1.70 lakhs was credited as difference PF dues amount in May/June 2014 in to Member's Bank Account without providing details as to how such arrears was worked out by EPFO post my complaint.
(b) EPFO did not provide the basis of such working out as to what were the reckonable factors for arriving at such an arrears' amount detected by EPFO to have been evaded by DL/2333),
(c) Several reminders sent to both EPFO, Dwaraka office and Establishment, did not yield any response. Because, the EPFO, Dwaraka have conducted Investigation after my complaint, the information need to be provided. Hence, this query under RTI as to
(i) why such details were not provided to the applicant?
(ii) Applicant is still (on making this RTI) apprehensive of DL/2333 not being PF compliant with Employment terms (CPC scales+ CDA) pattern during entire tenure of applicant, because of item No.4 factor above.
(iii) The evasion of PF obligations by DL/2333 is an established fact. in view of further settlement made by EPFO, but without any working out.
(iv) EPFO may inform By non extending of pay panel benefits by the establishment on due dates, whether employer avoided/evaded his obligations?
(v) Whether, (assuming such default by EPFO or any law abiding establishment denying revisions), to its own employees periodically once pay scale, CDA nexus established, amounts to default or NOT?
(vi) And, whether this default did result in the PF reservoir getting substantially debilitated? Please reply.
(vii) Whether such deferment in applicability of CPC scales, its dilution directly or indirectly has NOT impacted the PF contribution of both Member and Employer? Please reply.
(viii) Whether this act (of DL/2333) is a breach of Sec.12 of PF Act; or viii) Page 2 of 6 (NOT, (evasion & loss of such matching PF contributions, non-deposit of matching PF contribution by employer in A/c No. DL/2333/499 along with the interest that the applicant would have earned from time to time)
(ix) and does such moves of Employer, amount to violation of EPF Act, inter alia substantially ?
(x) And other related information."
The CPIO, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Dwarka, Delhi vide letter dated 02.11.2022 replied as under:-
(Furnished information Part-II) "1. Copy of member ledger is attached here with regarding calculation and deduction of 門 amount,
2. With regards to determination and calculation of pensionable salary and pensionable service, please see para 11 and 10 of EPS Scheme, 1995 (copy attached),
3. Gratuity is totally differ and have separate rule and has no relation with EPFO,
4. In the matter of S.C Gupta vs EPFO, the order is yet to be pronounced by Honorable Supreme Court,
5. The public authority under the RTI act is not supposed to create information or to interpret information, or to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Only such information can be provided under the Act, which already exists with the public authority.
The CPIO -II, Budget and Internal Finance, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi vide letter dated 21.11.2022 replied as under:-
(Furnished information Part-I) Para (a):- EPFO sources funds for running the establishment from Administrative Charges.
Para (b):- NO."
The CPIO and Addl Central PF Commissioner (Pension), New Delhi vide letter dated 29.12.2022 also provided a detailed reply to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.11.2022 and 26.11.2022. The FAA and RPF- I, Dwarka vide order dated 10.01.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO and stated as under:-Page 3 of 6
"The public authority under the RTI Act is not supposed to create information, or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants, or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Only such information can be provided under the Act, which already exists with the public authority."
Furthermore, the FAA and Addl CPFC (Pension) EPFO, New Delhi vide order dated 13.01.2023 upheld the reply for points i to s of the RTI application. Regarding points c to j it was stated that the RTI application was transferred to CPIO (HRM-VIII and VI) and for point k to CPIO (ASD). If information has not been provided by them, the appeal lies with their concerned Appellate Authorities. Hence, the appeal is being transferred to the concerned Appellate Authority for taking necessary decision at their end, Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Asst PF Commissioner, Delhi (South) The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation. However, a written submission has been received from the Appellant dated 29.04.2024 which has been taken on record. In his written submission, the Appellant inter alia stated that the desired information was not provided to him.
He also sought to know whether the third party i.e., NCCF had complied with its responsibilities under the EPF Act. He also stated that he desired adjudication of another separate Second Appeal filed by him against the M/o Consumer Affairs with the instant matter. He also mentioned that due to his old age he would be not be present during the hearing and that he desired information on the following two points at this stage:
(A) Whether Third Party (set up Unit - NCCF Of India Limited, having their Office , now at 3, Siri Institutional Area, New Delhi (having PF Regn No.DL/2333/), who followed Central Pay Scales Pattern and Central Dearness Allowances to its employees, as per the terms of appellants appointment letter, and having complied with Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) Pattern to the Applicant on the Central Pay Panel's Time scales (from 1977 to 1984), did they honor the similar payment of CDA to the appellant during his remaining service tenure from 1985 onwards to 28/2/2009, along with all such reckonable factors/elements?
(B) Whether the Respondent (EPFO) did comply with the provisions of Section 12 of the EPF Act in regard to checking of the remittances of PF contributions made by the third party, for the above period scrupulously for the applicants service tenure period, and, if not, why and how the PF provisions (Sec 12 r/w other applicable sections), could be avoided and Page 4 of 6 evaded or allowed to be defaulted to siphon off the PF Reservoir of the applicant, when such default is not permitted under the Act.
Shri Rakesh Kumar reiterated his written submission dated 08.05.2024 the relevant extracts of which are as under:
The Parawise comments against the points as provided by concerned Section are as under:-
I. Part- II Para no.3. For PF: As per office record PF has been settled in r/o Sh. R H Managoli bearing PF account number- DU2333/499 for amounting Rs.426932/- (Employee share) & Rs.613660/- (Employer share)= Rs.10,40,592/- (Total) vide cheque number- 780802 dated: 26.03.2009.
Part- II Para no.3 For Pension: As per records which includes IDS, Claim Form-IOD signed and verified and attested by Authorised signatory of the establishment received from RO. Thane Office through E Mail Dated: 08.05.2024 regarding PPO No-TFITI IA/04051950. It is evident as per statutory limit of wage ceiling in EPS Scheme was 6500/- hence the pension was correctly calculated.
The copy of Office Note dated 08.05.2024 of concerned Section alongwith Form-10D and Pension Work Sheet in respect of Sh. R. H. Manoli as received from RPFC, Thane South are attached for further reference.
Further as per member Ledger/office record employer again deposited employer share-Rs.76764/- & Employee share- Rs.92202/- = Rs.I68966/- (Total) approved on 07.03.2014 and credited to bank account on 11.03.2014.
Another written submission was received by the Commission from the APF-II Accounts Group- 101 EPFO, Dwarka vide letter dated 08.05.2024 the relevant extracts of which are as under:
1. Part- II Para no.3. For PF: As per office record PF has been settled in r/o Sh. R H Managoli bearing PF account number- DL/2333/499 for amounting Rs.426932/- (Employee share) & Rs.613660/- (Employer share)= Rs.10,40,592/- (Total) vide cheque number- 780802 dated: 26.03.2009.
Further as per member Ledger/office record employer again deposited employer share-Rs.76764/- & Employee share- Rs.92202/- = Rs.168966/- (Total) approved on 07.03.2014 and credited to bank account on 11.03.2014.
2. Part- II Para no.3 For Pension: As per records which includes IDS, Claim Form-10D signed and verified and attested by Authorised signatory of the establishment received from RO. Thane Office through E Mail Dated:
08.05.2024 regarding PPO No- THTHA/04051950. It is evident as per statutory limit of wage ceiling in EPS Scheme was 6500/- hence the pension Page 5 of 6 was correctly calculated. So all relevant records and documents are enclosed herewith for reference.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent as only such information that is held and available in the records of a public authority can be provided. Furthermore, in his written submission the Appellant has highlighted two queries which are in the nature of seeking clarification/ opinions from the CPIO which does not fall within the definition of information/ right to information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands 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 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)