Central Information Commission
Mr.Dr Soobrata Roy vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 13 October, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000154/9769
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000154
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. R P S Malhotra
15-B, Upkar Nagar, Factory Area,
Patiala, Punjab.
Respondent : Mr. Joginder Ram Dr. Ved Prakash, CPIO & RPFC-II
Public Information Officer & Accounts Officer Employee's Provident Fund Organization Regional Office, SCO 4-7, Sector - 17D, Chandigarh - 160017, Punjab RTI application filed on : 28/04/2009 PIO replied : 26/05/2009 First appeal filed on : 28/05/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 25/06/2009 Second Appeal received on : 28/05/2010 S. No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Details of amount on which the PF is calculated. The PF amount to be calculated on the basis of basic wages as defined under Section 2 of EPF and Misc. Provision Act, 1952.
2. Whether it was correct that a large number of The Appellant has sought clarification and manpower/security agencies had been depositing PF by he was informed that the office had to calculating it on 60% of minimum wages i.e. if supply the information as available on the minimum wage of Punjab is `3200, the agency have record. No such information was been depositing 3200*0.6*.2561= 491.71 as PF. available.
3. Details of legally correct figure for PF for the minimum wage per month of ` 3200.
4. Details of official stand on the matter that certain inspectors of the department had also approved the said calculation.
5. Details of action that will be take against those The Appellant has not sought any agencies which had been depositing PF by calculating information which was available in office it on 60% as shown above if the Appellant provided the record. date about them.
First Appeal:
Incomplete and misleading information received from the PIO. Order of the FAA:
The FAA in its order noted that the CPIO had not furnished the information as requested by the Appellant. He further directed the CPIO to furnish the information which was permissible under the RTI Act within 7 days.
Reply Received after the FAA's order:
Query No. 2: As per provisions of Section 6 of the EPF & Mis. Provisions Act, 1952, Provident Fund Contributions were required to be contributed on basic wages, DA (including cash value of food concessions allowed employee) and retaining allowance (if any) for the time being payable to each of the employee whether employed by him directly or through a contractor. Query No. 3: PF contribution were required to be contributed as per provision of Section 6 of the Act as given above.
Query No. 5: Action against the defaulters or non-compliance of the provision of Section 6 of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 is taken u/s 7A, 14, 14A, 7Q and Section 8 of the Act.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information received from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kumar representing Mr. R P S Malhotra on video conference from NIC-Patiala; Respondent : Dr. Ved Prakash, CPIO & RPFC-II and Mr. Joginder Ram Accounts Officer on video conference from NIC-Chandigarh Studio;
The PIO has stated that he has given the information as per the available records and that as per their records no instances have come to light of employers calculating PF at 60% of the minimum wages. The appellant states that he wants the PF office to calculate the amount of PF deduction which he must make. This is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
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 13 October 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)