K Soman vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 13 March, 2025

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

K Soman vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 13 March, 2025

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/2024/103655

Shri K SOMAN                                                      ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                         ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Date of Hearing                           :   07.03.2025
Date of Decision                          :   07.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner            :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :           21.06.2023
PIO replied on                    :           25.07.2023
First Appeal filed on             :           16.08.2023
First Appellate Order on          :           22.09.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :           01.02.2024

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.06.2023 seeking information on following points:-

"Ref:

(1)7A order No. KR/4826/Enf1(5)/2013/3070-A dated 01/8/2013 by EPFO (2) CGIT order dated 13/9/2021 in Appeal No. 616/2019 (3) Letter No.KR/TVM/4826/ENF/I (5)/2021-22 dt.14/2/2022 and numerous other communications including meeting in person with the RPFC on 7/11/2022. (4) My representation (through mail) to the RPFC, Thiruvananthapuram dated 05/06/2023.

(5) Letter No.KR/RO?TVM/Special Cell/PPO No.81128/2000/2326 dated 04/09/2020 I am a Retired Employee of the Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS), Trivandrum-

KR/4826. There was a 7A order relating to payment of PF dues by my ex-Employer vide reference cited (1) above. After prolonged representations and CGIT-cum Labour- Court verdict, the EPFO issued a direction to the Director, NCESS to submit the month- wise ECR Text file in respect of the aggrieved vide references (2 and 3) cited above. I represented the matter severally, including in a meeting in person with the RPFC on 07/11/2022. It appears that no tangible result in realizing the revised ECR/3A or the damages and interest under sections 14B and 7Q vide ref.5 has so far been achieved. Through this application under provisions of RTI Act(2005), I request you to kindly provide information to me:

(1) The status of compliance in submitting the ECR Text file by NCESS in response to the EPFO letter cited above (ref. 3), (2) The Proposed follow up in this matter by the EPFO, as both the EPFO and this petitioner stand to suffer financially on account of the non-compliance by the ex-

Employer."

Page 1 The CPIO/Regional P.F. Commissioner-II, Employees Provident Fund Organisation vide letter dated 25.07.2023 replied as under:-

"1. No such ECR/revised ECR submitted by the employer

2. The CPIO is not supposed to create information that is not part of the record of the pubic authority. The public information Officer is not required to furnish information which requires drawing inferences or making assumption, interpreting information, solving problems raised by the applicants or furnishing replies to hypothetical questions. However, it is informed that the employer had remitted to pension fund contribution to the statutory limit only, as per 'Para 26(6) of the EPF & MP Act 1952'."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2023. The FAA vide order dated 22.09.2023 stated as under:-

"It is seen that the information available with the CPIO has already been provided to the applicant. Hence the appeal is disposed off."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri Pratapan, Enf. Officer -Authorized Representative of CPIO.

The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply has already been sent to the Appellant vide letter dated 24.7.2023.

The Commission noted that the officer appearing on behalf of the CPIO was not well acquainted with the facts of the case and failed to assist the Commission.

Decision:

Upon the perusal of the case records & submissions, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has been provided by the CPIO. No further action lies.

Further, the Commission at the outset takes grave exception for the unexplained absence of CPIO during the hearing before the Commission. Such casual conduct of the CPIO causes unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information and is in grave violation to the provisions of RTI Act. In this regard the CPIO is directed to file a written submission detailing the reason for his unexplained absence during the hearing before the Commission. The said written explanation should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Page 2 The Appeal stands disposed off.

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 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission