Central Information Commission
P Selvakumar vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 24 January, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमार्ग,मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/C/2024/600331
Shri P Selvakumar शिकायतकर्ता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Employees Provident Fund Organisation ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.01.2025
Date of Decision : 09.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 16.08.2023
PIO replied on : 11.10.2023
First Appeal filed on : 25.09.2023
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 02.01.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"Query:(1) Information:
From 14.11.1980 to 11.08.2010 how much percentage of amount, and total amount remitted by Ranipet BHEL BAP Company in the Account of PPO No./TN/VLR/00017199/FPS/2192 in the name of P. Selvakumar son of K.Perumal by verifying the Provident Fund records maintained in your office and furnish copies of the same. Further all the copy of records furnished has to be signed by the Authorised Signatory, the post held by him/her in which office working affixing of Office Seal.
Query:(2) Information:
By verifying your office records the U.A.N. Account No. assigned to my name also furnished in writing."
Having not received any response from the response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 25.09.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Page 1 of 4The Regional P.F. Commissioner-II & CPIO, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Vellore vide letter dated 11.10.2023 replied as under:-
"......it is seen that the mandatory fee of Rs.10/- through Indian Postal Order or Demand Draft or Banker's cheque drawn in favour of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Vellore is not made along with your application. Hence, the application is not maintainable under the Right to Information Act, 2005 as per Section 3 of the RTI (Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rules, 2005.
However, your application will be treated as a grievance and be replied at the earliest. This is for your information."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Respondent stating that the PIO had sent reply dated 06.09.2023 informing the Applicant of the fact that his employer organisation did not fall within the ambit of the EPF Scheme. The detailed written submission is self explanatory as such.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri Sahil Choudhary - APFC was present during hearing through video conference The Complainant contended that he is not satisfied with the reply sent by the Respondent. The Respondent present during hearing referred to the contents of the written submission mentioned hereinabove stating vide reply dated 06.09.2023 informing the Applicant that the establishment M/S BHEL (BAP) Ltd. is exempted under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and they maintain their own Provident Fund trust and records. Thus information available on record and as permissible under the RTI Act had been duly provided to the Applicant.
Decision:
Upon examining the facts of the case, it is noted that the queries raised by the Complainant had been appropriately responded by the Respondent, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
In view of the fact that the queries raised by the Complainant has been duly answered and the Complainant has chosen to file this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which is left for adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. From the records of the case at hand and averments of the Respondent, it appears that the Respondent has Page 2 of 4 sent information available on records thereby negating any attempt at deliberate suppression of information. Considering the fact that the information furnished by the Respondent is in consonance with the terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and did not suffer from any legal infirmity, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
In the given circumstances, in the absence of wilful or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent in this case, the Commission finds no ground for further action under Section 18 of the RTI Act in this case. The Respondent is directed to send a copy of the written submission filed before the Commission with all relevant annexures to the Applicant within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within a week thereafter.
The case is disposed off as such.
Sd/-
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)