Central Information Commission
Rajnish Ratnakar vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 22 May, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/614660
Shri Rajnish Ratnakar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Employees Provident Fund Organisation ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.05.2025
Date of Decision : 20.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.01.2024
PIO replied on : 15.02.2024
First Appeal filed on : 15.02.2024
First Appellate Order on : 22.03.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 09.04.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. whether directions of initiating provisions of section 7A of epf act 1952 has been issued as steps and measures and curative treatment to eliminate continuous violation of two decades by any of these concerned officers of EPFO or not who are discharging their duty by forwarding mails from pillar to post. 2 if proceedings under section 7A have already been initiated by all concerned regional offices, then kindly provide me its details and also provide me the details whether any specified duration has been prescribed to conclude this enquiry or not."
The CPIO/Accounts Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Patna vide letter dated 15.02.2024 replied as under:-
"1 & 2. As informed by the applicant through email about the violation of the Act in respect of Education Department, Government of Bihar. Further, applicant is informed that Education Department, Government of Bihar is an exempted establishment for compliance of the Act under section 16(A) of the Act. After regular persuasion with Government of Bihar, all the teachers are covered under Act under different EPF Code No. allotted to each District Education Officer in concerned district."Page 1 of 2
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.02.2024. The FAA vide order dated 22.03.2024 held as under:-
"I have gone through the RTI Appeal Application of the applicant and the reply of the RTI application. It is informed that, information has already been provided by the CPIO vide letter no.5578 dated 15.02.2024.
It is also informed that, only such information case be supplied under the RTI Act, which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. The public information officer is not supposed to create information, or to interpret information, or to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical question."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant reiterating his contentions from the second appeal and it has been duly taken on record.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar - Enforcement Officer/CPIO, EPFO, Patna was heard through video conference during hearing. The Appellant has chosen not to attend the hearing. The Respondents present during hearing contended that response based on available records had been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of the mandate of the RTI Act.
Decision Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing averments of the Respondent, the Commission notes that information available on records have been duly furnished to the Appellant, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Considering the fact that appropriate response in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly provided by the Respondent and the Appellant has chosen not to contest the case, no further intervention is deemed necessary warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)