Central Information Commission
M. Selvam vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 14 January, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/641470
M. Selvam ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: M/o. Labour &
Employment, ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Employees' Provident Fund
Organisation, Madurai, T. N
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 29.04.2024 FA : 03.08.2024 SA : Nil.
CPIO : Not on record FAO : 13.08.2024 Hearing : 12.12.2025
Date of Decision: 22.12.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Please inform the reason for withheld of my retirement benefits of Rs.26,30,920/(apprx) towards over payments (OPRC) in connection with 08 IW Claim settlements.
2. Please inform the reason for 08 IW Claims settlement are treated us over payment (OPRC), if any over payments made by me more than the amount due, if so inform the amount due and more than amount paid by me in respect of each 08 IW claim settlement.Page 1 of 6
3. Please inform the Name and address of the Officer or Authority withheld my retirement benefits of Rs.26,30,920/(apprx) towards OPRC in connection with 08 IW Claim settlements.
4. Please inform the meaning or definition of over payment.
5. Please inform any pecuniary loss occurred to the EPFO or CBT or Government of India or Members etc., by my act of paying in connection with 08 IW Claim settlements, since the CPFC (Competent Disciplinary Authority) has given Censure Order based on the para No.4, para No.5, para No.6 of CPFC penalty Order No. HR/AVS/III/135/MS-EO/Rule-10/RO-MAD/2018/23 dated 17.01.2024.(copy enclosed).
..., etc./ other related information
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.08.2024. The FAA vide order dated 13.08.2024 stated as under: -
"....
And, whereas the appellant aggrieved and filed an appeal vice ref (3) by stating that his online original application No. EPFOG/R/E/24/06173 dated 29.04.2024 was not replied even after the lapse of more than three months. Hence the appellant has requested to inform the reason for the non-supply of information under RTI Act, 2005.
The CPIO in his comments on the appeal has informed that the information sought by the appellant has already been provided moreover it is submitted that the online RTI application dated 29.04.2024 was received by this office only on 30.07.2024. On receipt of the same the application was replied/disposed on 07.08.2024. However, the reply to his original application once again may be provided to the appellant.
I have carefully perused the records placed before me by both the parties. The CPIO, RO, Madurai has already provided the available information to the Page 2 of 6 appellant and on receipt of the application received dated 30.07.2024, the CPIO, Madurai, has disposed/replied on 07.08.2024. However, a copy of the reply dated 06.08.2024 sent by CPIO, Regional Office, Madurai to the appellant is enclosed herewith."
The FAA also took on record that the CPIO, Regional Office, Madurai, had replied the following:
"1. Please refer to the letter of ACC (HQ) No. ZACC/7/Monthly. Vig.Report/(NVA)/2019 (E) dated 19.01.2024 and email dated 17.01.2024 received from DAR section (copies enclosed).
2. It is informed that a PIO is not expected to provide intangible such as Interpretations, opinions, advices, explanations, reasons as they cannot be said to be included in the definition of Information in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
3. No such Information is available. However, Information is related to RO, Chennai (North). Herce the same is being transferred under Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 to CPIO, Chennai (North), for providing information directly to the applicant.
4. Please refer Para 14.06 of Manual of Accounting Procedure Part I General which is available at EPFO website https://www.epfindia.gov.in/site_docs/P DFs/Downloads_PDFs/MAP_PartI_Complete.pdf.
5. It is informed that a PIO is not expected provide intangible such as interpretations, opinions, advice, explanations, reasons as they cannot be said to be included in the definition of information in Section 2 (F) of the RTI Act.
6. 1. Shir Sinnaguruvu, SSSA was awarded a penalty.
2. Shri S. Arun, SSSA:
Nil.Page 3 of 6
7. It is informed that a PIO is not expected provide intangible such as interpretations, opinions, advices, explanations, reasons as they cannot be said to be included in the definition of information in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
8. Please refer to Sl. No. 1 of above."
3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
4. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent S. Azhaghiya, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had failed to respond within the stipulated time limit prescribed under the RTI Act. He insisted that action may be initiated against the erring CPIO, who only acted after first appeal was filed before the FAA.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that it was not a case of non-response, as claimed by the appellant, and that they had replied to the appellant on 07.08.2024. Further, in respect of the delay caused in disposing of the RTI application, the CPIO explained that the RTI application was transferred to the concerned custodian of the information. The written submissions dated 10.12.2025 were relied upon by the CPIO; the same are taken on record and are extracted as under:
"Shri M Selvam, AO (Retd) filed an second appeal under reference (5) disagreed with the order of first appellate authority stating that the statement given by the first appellate authority of EPFO, RO, Madurai is purely false information and the act of First Appellate Authority EPFO, RO, Madurai is violation of RTI act, 2005 and is liable to fix the responsibility under the RTI Act 2005. Further it is stated by the applicant that the inordinate delay was occurred wilfully and false information on the part of CPIO and First Appellate Authority and requested to inform the action taken against the CPIO and First Appellate Authority.
In this regard the following are submitted for kind perusal please-Page 4 of 6
1. Shri M Selvam, AO (Retd) filed an Online RTI application under ref(1). The said RTI application was forwarded by CPIO, HRM V to CPIO DAR & AVS HO on 20.05.2024 and the same was forwarded to CPIO, Madurai by CPIO DAR &AVS HO on 30.07.2024.
2.CPIO Madurai vide reply letter dated 06.08.2024 replied/disposed the RTI application on 07.08.2024.
3. Further, the RTI request was transferred for S.No. 3 to RO, Chennai (North) on
07.8.2024 for providing information to S.No. 3. In this regard, Action history of the said RTI application is enclosed for reference.
4. In the meantime, Shri M Selvam filed an first appeal dt. 03.08.2024 received on 06.08.2024 and the same was disposed vide First Appellate Authority order No. TN/RO/MD/MDU/Adm-I/AB/RTI/A-274/2024 dt. 13.08.2024 on 14.08.2024.
5. Hence, it is stated that CPIO, RO, Madurai has already provided the available Information to the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of RTI application by RO, Madurai, Hence, there is no delay and false information provided by CPIO/FAA of Madurai. Accordingly, the appeal may be disposed of."
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the RTI application was filed by the applicant primarily asking answers to a grievance that his retirement benefits were withheld. Further, it is also noted that the first appeal filed by the appellant was time- barred, and the FAA without taking cognizance of the same had passed an order on examination of the merits. Besides, the appellant has not contested the merits of the reply given by the CPIO and has pleaded for action to be initiated against the CPIO for the delay caused in responding to his RTI application. In that regard, the written submissions given by the CPIO dated 10.12.2025, justifying the transfer of RTI application and furnishing of information by the concerned custodian, are found reasonable and there appears to be no mala fide intention on the part of CPIO to cause obstruction of Page 5 of 6 information. Therefore, there appears to be no substantial ground for further intervention in this matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 22.12.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO M/o. Labour & Employment, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, CPIO, Regional Office-Madurai, Tamilnadu-625002 2 M. Selvam Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)