Central Information Commission
Dr.Indiran Manchil vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 6 January, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/001119/10808
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/001119
Complainant : Dr. Indiran Nachil
181, North Usman Road,
T. Nagar, Chennai - 600017.
Tamilnadu.
Respondent : Mr. S. D. Prasad
Public Information Officer & RPFC-II Employee's Provident Fund Organisation (MoLE) Sub-Regional Office, Ambattur, R-40A, T. N. H. B., Office-cum-
Shopping Complex, Muggapair, Chennai - 600037.
RTI application filed on : 07/06/2010 PIO replied : Not replied First Appeal filed on : 09/07/2010 Complaint filed on : 23/08/2010 Complaint received on : 07/09/2010 Complaint notice issued on : 10/09/2010 Information Sought:
The Complainant wanted to know about the PF a/c number of 114 employees of Associated Garment Exports, 1/8, Chettiar Agaram Salai, Vanagaram, Chennai-600095 and amount contributed by the employees and employer in the respective PF account.
Reply of the PIO:
Not replied.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO within the stipulated time.
Grounds for Complaint:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO within the stipulated time.
Submission received from the PIO:
(In response of Complaint notice dated 10/09/2010) The PIO vide his letter dated 12/10/2010 informed the Commission that the reply of RTI Application was sent to the Complainant on 14/06/2010 in which it was stated that the information could not be supplied under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 since the PF contribution were held by the office in fiduciary capacity and account number were the personal information. The FAA vide his order dated 31/08/2010 had also upheld the information given by the PIO. Copy of the reply and decision of the FAA had been given (enclosed).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Complainant: Dr. Indiran Nachil on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio; Respondent: Mr. S. D. Prasad, Public Information Officer & RPFC-II;
The PIO has refused to give details of the account numbers and the accounts in terms of the amounts in these accounts to the Complainant claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act claiming that these details are held by the Department in a fiduciary relationship. Details of PF Account held by the PF authorities of each individuals are like a bank account of an individual and a customer banker relationship is certainly a fiduciary relationship.
Decision:
The Complaint is dismissed.
The Commission upholds the decision of the PIO claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
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 06 January 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (GJ)