Central Information Commission
V Vaidyanathan vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 17 July, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/BS/C/2015/000157
V. Vaidyanathan v. PIO, EPFO, Mumbai
RTI : 11.05.2014
FAO : Nil
Second Appeal : 15.06.2015
Hearing : 06.07.2017
Complainant : Absent
Public authority : Shri Avinash Gandhi, RPFC
Decided on : 17.07.2017
FINAL ORDER
FACTS:
1. The complainant sought information about employees' pension scheme valuation by Actuary every year since year 2000 and sought reasons why revision of his pension was not done as he claimed that EPFO had wrongly calculated and reduced his service period. The CPIO transferred the application to ACPIO/APFC Kandivali Office. The complainant approached this Commission on the ground that his pension was not revised in accordance to his service period.
2. The Commission's order dated 12.04.2017:
2. Mr. Ashutosh, APFC stated that the actuary related information did not fall within jurisdiction of his office, and hence transferred the RTI request to ACPIO APFC, Kandivali with a request to provide point wise information within 30 days.
Regarding revision of pension, he said that the department is giving him correct pension, however the department had found that there was discontinuation in his service amounting to a non-contributory period of 210 days. The appellant denied saying there is no discontinuation in his service, which is confirmed by IDS. He complained that the department caused undue delay and only in 2016 that he was informed about discrepancy in calculation of his service period. The appellant stated that he was not given appropriate amount of pension that he deserved for 12 long years. He has to live in an old-age home Room Number 101, Shiv Ashray Old Age Home Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi-85, and whenever there is a need to be in Delhi, he was compelled to stay at his married daughter's house much to her inconvenience. Appellant said it was pathetic and also against his self-esteem to be with any other person, and only refuge was the old-age home.
3. The complainant's genuine question is why should he not get adequate and revised pension and other benefits so that he could live independent with self-respect, and why not the public authority (EPFO) adhere to its own declared CIC/BS/C/2015/000157 Page 1 timelines in Citizen's Charter, which mandates to settle grievance about pension within 30 days. The appellant stated that he was harassed by the respondent organisation for more than 12 years made to face financial difficulties in meeting his daily needs by denying his due pension, besides putting him in disrespectful position.
4. Section 7(1) of the RTI Act reads as under:
"7. Disposal of request.--(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: Provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request."
RIGHT TO LIFE BY PENSION:
5. Right to life is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It says: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. It's like a mantra for a person that prevents illegal deprivation of life or liberty. State devised several welfare measures like 'pension' to retired employees. This is a positive measure of State to implement Article 21 of Constitution of India. Pension for old aged, disabled etc is an extension of this right. The maintenance amount fixed by courts for dependents and spouses is a similar legal measure to help living. The appellant in this case suffered serious violation of his right to live with dignity because of undue denial of pension for more than 12 years. The act of delay by the public authority violated his right to life under Article 21, right to pension as per his service rules and contract of employment with Government, breach of citizen's charter besides being breach of his right to information.
SPEEDY DELIVERY OF 'LIFE' INFORMATION:
6. The RTI Act provides for speedy delivery of information sought if the matter deals with life or liberty. Some authorities argued that unless an imminent danger is there to life or liberty, this clause cannot be invoked and only when disclosure of information would have effect of saving the applicant from that danger, such information should be given in 48 hours. It is an extraneous extension of imagination without any basis. The expression used in the Act is simply "where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person", which should mean it is enough if it concerns the life or liberty. That need not be in imminent danger. This was neither stated nor required by the RTI Act.
7. It is crucial if a prisoner wants to know the date of release or having an apprehension about delaying the release and if there is any problem in calculating the remission or period of sentence etc, this information request is "the information concerning the life or liberty". 'Pensioners' are another class of persons who require information about pension, delayed or not paid, or not fixed etc. if the file for pension fixation is facing red tape, the retired employee does not get any pay as he was getting when in service, might not have means to survive, might not be supported by son or daughter, might be failing to help his wife, or he might be at the mercy of his son or daughter or others for small requirements too. Then his request for information has enough concern for life or liberty to demand urgent disclosure. Similarly the maintenance related CIC/BS/C/2015/000157 Page 2 information of dependent person/wife, son or a senior citizen or a neglected parent, dweller in an old-age home, inmate of orphan house, juvenile home etc, need to be considered as this kind of information which need to be disclosed within 48 hours.
8. The RTI Act just provides for disclosure of information which might be used for protection of life and liberty, or might be used against possible danger to life or liberty. If that element of concern is prima facie, visible, the PIO has to provide information within 48 hours. There is no need to look for 'imminent danger' to life. If we look at the pathetic case of the retired applicant who was denied pension for more than 12 years, his survival was threatened and the CPIO did not even attempt to give information within 48 hours but also did not bother to give any information till 4.6.2015 (RTI request dated 7.5.2014), and not responded even after the hearing notice from CIC dated 23.3.2017.
9. Keeping in view the living needs of old aged pensioner, the Commission considers that any information relating to fixation, non-payment and delay regarding fixation of pension, besides non-payment of interest on arrears as life and liberty related information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
10. In this case, we should understand that senior citizen Shri V. Vaidyanathan may require every rupee of his entitlement and the State must be responsible to pay every rupee due to him without any delay. If an old aged person prefers an RTI application regarding the pension matters mentioned herein, the public authority should understand that it might have a hidden-untold misery. It is the statutory duty of public authority/PIO to respond to such RTI requests within 48 hours as mandated by Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
11. Taking into account the pathetic conditions prevailing in the contemporaneous society with deteriorating human relations between parents and children, even a single pie of pension amount will provide a valuable support to the pensioner in situation like that of this appellant. Assuming that the sons/daughters are supporting the father, he might still be in need of the money which he is entitled to receive. The Public Authority/CPIO is expected to understand this human element and develop a mindset to clear such grievances/claims within 48 hours. Someone in public authority has to take personal care to see that the payment of arrears reaches such helpless pensioners as soon as possible. They should understand that they too walk into such situation sooner or later. The duty of public authority in a welfare state is that it has to redress the grievance relating to non-payment of pension at the earliest. As per the RTI Act, the question relating to pension-grievance has to be necessarily responded within 48 hours.
12. The moment RTI application on pension issue is received, there should be a mechanism at the entry stage to discover and identify if it reflects a pension related grievance/issue and then should act immediately. It should be brought to the notice of the responsible officer by the CPIO on the same day and find whether his/her pension was fixed or not, reasons for not fixing or not paying and then if found to be a genuine case, the grievance shall be addressed and result shall be communicated within 48 hours, followed by redressal within 30 days.
13. If for any reason this did not happen, they have a duty to communicate at least those reasons within 48 hours along with the address of the FAA as soon as possible, to the appellant to file first appeal. The appellant in such cases can file first appeal immediately, which shall also be taken up for hearing.
CIC/BS/C/2015/000157 Page 3
14. Not only the CPIO, even the other authorities under RTI Act like the First appeal/second appellate authorities also should dispose such appeals involving pension issues, within 48 hours. The First appellate authority, being a senior officer of public authority, has a higher moral, legal and human obligation to take up the case of pensions and pension-arrears on priority and at least send a hearing notice within 48 hours. This should not take more than the minimum time required for communicating the appellant. If the phone/mobile or whatsapp, or email id is available, they shall use them to contact the applicant/appellant and to communicate the hearing notice/response. The fact should not be ignored is that the mobile phone is provided to the public servant, and his bills are paid from tax-payers money.
15. It is also the duty of the FAA to identify if the issue in first appeal relates to pension and to initiate hearing process within 48 hours. The FAA being the senior officer of the Public Authority has to summon the CPIO or any other concerned officer to redress the grievance as soon as possible on an urgent basis, if the grievance can be redressed, the same has to be intimated to the appellant and hearing shall be fixed within 48 hours with due intimation to the appellant. The same thing shall apply to CIC/SIC also. It is their duty to identify if the second appeal pertains to issue of pension/arrears and, if so, initiate hearing process within 48 hours, contacting the appellant and the CPIO on phone or by e- mail and post it for hearing taking minimum time needed to communicate the hearing notice. The Commission feels sorry about its administration for keeping this second appeal pending for such a long time, which should have been posted within 48 hours of its receipt for hearing.
16. The Commission would like to reiterate that all the cases relating to delay in fixation/payment of pension and also arrears shall be dealt with urgently considering them as request for information concerning the life or liberty under section 7(1) of RTI Act. Any grievance regarding these issues also should be treated as 'right to life' under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the public authorities shall do all the needful to address the issue within 48 hours.
17. Under RTI Act, the CPIO has a duty to transfer the application to the concerned authority if he does not hold the information sought for. Informing the appellant that he has forwarded the representation is neither a response nor furnishing information. It amounts to suppression of information without any reason.
18. This Commission holds that the pension related grievance and information requests should be addressed on urgent basis within 48 hours.
19. The Commission finds though CPIO, RK Sharma, Assistant PF Commissioner RTI Section, Bandra Mumbai, transferred it to ACPIO Kandivali, who, as per record available, did not respond at all till today, which is gross breach of right to information of the complainant. The Complainant requested for action against the non-responding CPIO of Kandivali, compensation and also direct furnishing of the information regarding sanction of his pension. Though it is a complaint, Commission considers as second appeal. In fact, more than initiating penalty proceedings, there is a need to provide information regarding his pension.
20. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide certified copy of IDS to the appellant along with re-evaluated pension calculation sheet and updated status of his pension, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
CIC/BS/C/2015/000157 Page 4
21. The Commission directs Mr. Avinash Gandhi, CPIO as on 11.05.2014 to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for not furnishing information even after lapse of over two years, before 10.05.2017. The Commission directs Mr. Avinash Gandhi, earlier CPIO to explain why the public authority should not be directed to pay compensation to the complainant for causing delay in furnishing information adversely affecting revision of the complainant's pension, before 10.05.2017.
Decision :
3. The CPIO on 09.05.2017 submitted a written explanation, which explains:
"1. It has been alleged by the applicant that CPIO has not furnished any information to the applicant on his RTI application dated 11.05.2014, it is to intimate that the said application was received by CPIO. Regional Officer, Bandra. The CAPIO, Bandra transferred the application to CAPIO, Regional Office Kandivali vide letter No. MH/BAN/PF/RTI-2005/2142/269 dated 22.05.2014 which was received in RO, Kandivali in first week of June, 2014.
2. Meanwhile the applicant Shri V.Vaidyanathan again submitted an RTI application dated 03.06.2014 with same enquiry on his fixation of pension.
3. It is to intimate the Shri V.Vaidyanathan is getting pension w.e.f 29.10.2004 vide PPO No. MH/MAL/3013460 which have been prepared on 16.05.2005. The pensioner is getting pension regularly.
4. The pensioner Shri V.Vaidyanathan had submitted many application under RTI Act, 2005 and written other letter also which have been replied to him time to time. Shri V.Vaidyanathan has communicated and sought information vide letter dated 03.12.2013, 19.12.2013, 07.01.2014 and 25.02.2014 before his application dated 11.05.2015 and information have been provided regularly on fixation of his pension of Rs. 1125/- instead of Rs. 1256/- which pensioner claims.
5. Since the application dated 11.05.2014 and application date 03.06.2014 were for same information, the Assistant Provident Fund Commission, Pension provided the information directly to the applicant vide letter no. MH/PF/RO/KND/Pension/639 dated 24.06.2014. The receipt of said reply has been acknowledged by the applicant in application dated 01.07.2014 to the 1st appellate authority. The CPIO has forwarded the same information to the applicant. Since both the applications have been received at the same time with same information sought, only one reply was sent. Only in reply date of receipt of May, 2014 application was not mentioned inadvertently. However, all the applications have been replied CIC/BS/C/2015/000157 Page 5 by the CPIO from 2013 till date. I Avinash Gandhi, am CPIO of RO, Kandivali from 2013 till date and I have taken all due diligence to provide correct and timely information.
6. In hearing before Centre Information Commission in file no.
CIC/BS/A/2015/001085/11154 dated 30.08.2016 also, the case was heard by Honorable Information Commissioner Shri Basant Seth. The information sought by the applicant has been provided to applicant all the time.
7. In the view of above mentioned facts it can be seen that applicant has been given correct information on each occasion. This is not a case that Organization deprived the member of his legitimate due in shape of monthly pension. His pension is being released regularly year 2005 onwards.
Further in accordance with order of Honourable Information Commissioner in case no. CIC/BS/C/2005/000157, the CPIO has again provided the details of fixation of pension and decision of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Pension that the fixation of pension is correct. I, Avinash Gandhi Regional Provident Fund Commissioner/CPIO request your goodself to withdraw show cause notice. Since in capacity of CPIO as well as an officer I have performed my duty sincerely. I request you to not to levy any penalty or pay any compensate since there is no adverse effect on complaint pensioner which is getting correct pension as per rule."
4. The Commission after perusing the records available finds that sufficient information has been provided to the appellant. Penalty proceedings are dropped. Disposed of.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Dinesh Kumar) Deputy Registrar Copy of decision given to the parties free of cost.
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, CIC/BS/C/2015/000157 Page 6 EPFO, M/o Labour, Govt. of India, RO: Mumbai-I, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 341, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051.
2. Shri V. Vaidyanathan, Room No. 101, Shiv Ashray, Old Age Home, Opp. Gapanese Park, Gate No. 2, Sec-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
CIC/BS/C/2015/000157 Page 7