Central Information Commission
V Balaraman Pillai vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 4 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/A/2016/000307
V. Balaraman Pillai v. PIO, EPFO, Thiruvananthapuram
RTI : 31.03.2015
FAO : 24.07.2015
Second Appeal : 31.12.2015
Hearing : 28.06.2017
Appellant : Absent
Public authority : Shri Prathap Chandra, APFC
Decided on : 04.07.2017
FINAL ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought information with regard to his pension, which was not calculated according to his pensionable service. The CPIO forwarded his representation to the concerned authority to examine his RTI application, which was in the form of grievance and dispose the same on priority. First appeal was filed on the grounds that false, mala fide, misleading reasons were cited. FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO and also mentioned that a reply was given to the appellant on 20.07.2015 after his RTI application was forwarded to the concerned authority. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached this Commission.
2. The Commission's order dated 31.03.2017:
2. The appellant's grievance was that his pension was not calculated as per the rules of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The appellant submitted that he joined the Family Pension Scheme on 01.04.1971 and his last day of working i.e. his retirement date was on 30.09.1999. Further, the appellant after reading between the lines of Section 44(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, categorically confirms that his service was from 01.04.1971 to 30.09.1999.
3. Further the appellant submitted that he is entitled to receive amount to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month but in reality he is receiving a meagre amount of Rs. 930/- per month. With regard to this, the appellant had filed consumer case before the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Trivandrum, which gave an award directing the Provident Fund Commissioner to recalculate his pension considering his 28 years and 5 months of service, which the appellant claimed to have been confirmed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
CIC/BS/A/2016/000307 Page 1
4. It is really disheartening to hear the plea of this appellant who is receiving pension amount, which have been calculated for only four years from the enactment date of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and have not been calculated accordingly from his pensionable service. The appellant is a senior citizen aged around 76 years and also suffering from Cancer. He could attend the second appeal through video-conferencing from NIC Centre, Trivandrum with great difficulty and that too with a support of one of his friends. He submitted that he could not attend some of the hearings as no support was given at that point in time to the appellant.
5. Instead of giving any information to the appellant, the CPIO has simply forwarded to the concerned authority without even mentioning to whom he has forwarded. The FAA, has upheld the forwarding of his representation and totally ignored the grievance based information request. Commission finds both the CPIO and FAA who did not apply their mind and they never cared to look into the RTI application reflecting the grievance and request for information regarding the action taken on his representation. The public authority has a duty to inform him why they have not implemented the order of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The respondent authority did not even cared to look into the matter carefully as the appellant's 28 years of service was not formed the basis for calculating the pension. Not addressing the grievance of the appellant does not reflect good governance. The RTI Act is a legislation that empowers the citizen to question the inaction, red-tape, bad governance and indirectly demand the good governance. The public authority did not even answer or informed anything pertaining to his grievance about receiving 1/3rd of the eligible pension. As the appellant was surviving on meagre pension of Rs. 930/- per month against his claim of Rs. 3,000/- per month which was upheld by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The public authority should have immediately responded within two days of his RTI application.
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:
6. 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.
SPEEDY DELIVERY OF 'LIFE' INFORMATION:
7. 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 CIC/BS/A/2016/000307 Page 2 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. 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 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. 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.
8. 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.
9. In this case, we should understand that senior citizen Shri V. Balaraman Pillai may require every rupee of his entitlement and the State must be responsible to pay the due of every rupee 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.
10. 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 the grievance relating to non-payment of pension need to be redressed at the earliest. As per the RTI Act, the question relating to pension-grievance has to be necessarily responded within 48 hours.
11. 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 CIC/BS/A/2016/000307 Page 3 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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 information. It amounts to suppression of information without any reason. The FAA has conveniently ignored all these aspects and allowed the injustice to continue. Had the appellant got Rs. 3,000/- per month as he claimed, he could have been in a better position to address his old age/health issues. This Balaraman Pillai's application corroborates the conclusion of the Commission that request for information about pension is concerning life and liberty and need to be responded within 48 hours under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
17. This Commission has already held that the pension related grievance and information requests should be addressed on urgent basis within 48 hours.
CIC/BS/A/2016/000307 Page 4
18. The Commission finds the response of CPIO was grossly insufficient, amounts to no information furnished and a clear breach of right to information of the appellant. The Commission directs the CPIO Shri Varghese. K. Daniel (as on 07.07.2015) to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
19. The Commission directs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Shri Arif Lohani (as on 24.07.2015) to consider the RTI applications and second appeal as the complaint against the non-implementation of the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and address the grievance with all sympathy and provide the action taken report within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Decision:
3. Shri Ranjay Mooshahary, RPFC-I, submitted a written explanation which explains:
1. I, Ranjay Mooshahary S/o R.S. Mooshahary, aged 39 years working as Regional P.F. Commissioner - I & First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act 2005, at the Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:
2. The Hon'ble Information Commissioner has disposed the second appeal filed by Sri V. Balaraman Pillai in File No.CIC/BS/A/2016/000307 on 31/03/2017 with the following directions:-
1) "The Commission directs the CPIO Shri Varghese K. Daniel (as on 07/07/2015) to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order."
2) "The Commission directs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Shri Arif Lohani (as on 24/07/2015) to consider the RTI applications and second appeal as the complaint against the non-implementation of the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and address the grievance with all sympathy and provide the action taken report within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order."
3. It is brought to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Commission that earlier a second appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2015/001694/11953 was filed before this Hon'ble Commission under the Right to Information Act 2005 by Sri V. Balaraman Pillai against the decision of this First Appellate Authority in the very same matter.
4. That the Hon'ble Information Commission disposed the above said second appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2015/001694/11953 vide order dated 21/12/2016 with the following directions;
"The CPIO is directed to furnish the relevant file notings vide which the applicant's representation dated 31/03/2015 was disposed of along with calculation sheet of revised pension, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order."
5. The certified copy of the above said order of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner Sri Basant Seth was received in this office on 02/01/2017. Copy of the order dated 21/12/2016 of the Hon'ble CIC is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure-I. CIC/BS/A/2016/000307 Page 5 Accordingly, in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble CIC, the CPIO has already provided the relevant documents to the appellant vide letter No.KR/TVM/PRO/RTI/CIC Appeal/04/2016-17/8833 dated 04/01/2017 with a copy marked to the Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission. Copy of the letter dated 04/01/2017 is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure-II.
6. While so, another notice was received in this office from the Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission in File No.CIC/BS/A/2016/000307 informing the CPIO that the second appeal filed by Sri V. Balaraman Pillai is fixed for hearing via video conference at Trivandrum on 31/03/2017.
7. On receipt of the said notice in File No.CIC/BS/A/2016/000307, the CPIO Trivandrum informed the Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission via e- mail to the id printed in the notice on 24/03/2017 that the matter was already heard by the Hon'ble Information Commissioner Sri Basant Seth on 21/12/2016 in another Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2015/001694/11953 and that the orders of the Hon'ble CIC have already been complied with. Copies of the Annexure-I and Annexure-II referred above were also sent as mail attachment. Copy of the print- out of the e-mail sent to the Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commissioner is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure-III. The CPIO and the First Appellate Authority were under the bona fide belief that the second notice was issued by mistake which would be rectified on receipt of the e-mail communication. However, it is apparent that the appellant misled the Hon'ble Information Commissioner by stating that the EPFO has not sanctioned his pension which he is eligible as per orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereas EPFO has already granted him the eligible pension and no dispute is left now.
8. It is further submitted that in his RTI application dated 17/06/2015 which is the basis for the first appeal and then the second appeal, Sri V. Balaraman Pillai had not sought any "information" as defined in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act but had only sought a reply to his letter dated 31/03/2015 and requested for redressal of his grievances. A copy of the application under the RTI Act dated 17/06/2015 is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-IV. Regional P.F. Commissioner (Pension) is the pension sanctioning authority. Sri Varghese K. Daniel, Regional P.F. Commissioner Grade II was holding the charge of Regional P.F. Commissioner (Pension) and hence a reply was given to Sri V. Balaraman Pillai vide letter dated 20/07/2015 under the signature of the Regional P.F. Commissioner-II. A copy of the said letter dated 20/07/2015 is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-V. Sri V. Balaraman Pillai has been granted monthly pension as per the provisions of Employees' Pension Scheme 1995 and as per the directions of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The appellant's request for calculating pension taking pensionable service as 28 years and six months was discussed by the Hon'ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.122/2003 and it was held that the appellant is eligible for a monthly pension of Rs.835/- only.
9. The appellant's contention that he is entitled to receive pension to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month is wrong. No Forum has passed any order holding that he is eligible for monthly pension of Rs.3000/-. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Trivandrum gave an award directing the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to recalculate his pension considering his 28 years and 5 months of service with consequential reliefs and Rs.1000/- as cost. Copy of the order of the CDRF Trivandrum is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-VI.
CIC/BS/A/2016/000307 Page 6
10. The Regional P.F. Commissioner filed appeal against the order of the CDRF Trivandrum before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The said appeal was disposed of by the State Commission fixing the monthly pension payable to the appellant as Rs.835/- vide order dated 15/07/2015. The Hon'ble State Commission has already discussed elaborately about the service to be taken for calculation of monthly pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995 and arrived at the decision that Sri V. Balaraman Pillai is eligible for a monthly pension of Rs.835/- only. The operative part of the order of the State Commission is reproduced below:
"Thus it is clear from the materials on record the monthly pension payable to the complainant/respondent is Rs.835/- and not Rs.527/- as fixed by the appellant. The complainant/respondent is entitled to superannuation/retirement pension of Rs.835/- per month instead of Rs.527/- fixed by the appellant. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal. The appellant is directed to pay to the complainant/respondent retirement/superannuation pension of Rs.835/- per month.
As the complainant/ respondent has approached the lower forum for getting his monthly pension (retirement pension)/superannuation pension and his monthly pension is not determined correctly by the appellant we do not find any ground to interfere with the cost awarded by the lower forum." Copy of the order of the Kerala State Consumer Redressal Commission in Appeal No.122/2003 is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure VII.
11. Both the Regional P.F. Commissioner and Sri V. Balaraman Pillai appealed against the order of the State Commission before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Revision Petition No.680/2006 filed by Sri V. Balaraman Pillai and the Revision Petition No.563/2006 filed by the Regional P.F. Commissioner were both considered by the National Commission and a common order disposing both the revision petitions was issued by the Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 26/03/2009. The operative part of the order of the National Commission dated 26/03/2009 in R.P.680/2006 and R.P.563/2006 is reproduced below:
R.P.680/2006 (filed by Sri V. Balaraman Pillai) "Keeping in view the provisions of sub-section (5) of para 12, we are satisfied that the State Commission was right in laying down the pension at Rs.835/- per month. Para 11 on which the petitioner wishes to rely upon has no applicability. In these circumstances, when the procedure for grant of pension in the given set of circumstances is clearly spealt out in para 12 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, we see no merit in this revision. It is dismissed accordingly."
R.P. No.563/2006 (filed by Regional P.F. Commissioner) "We have seen the citations given by the petitioner for condoning the delay. Each case has to be governed by its own set of facts and circumstances. In the present case, sufficient cause has not been given to condone the delay.
Even on merits, having gone through the material on record and the provisions of grant of pension in such cases, we see no merit in this appeal on the grounds which have already been discussed earlier in F.A.680/2006 upholding the order of the State Commission.
CIC/BS/A/2016/000307 Page 7 In the aforesaid circumstances, both these revision petitions are dismissed with no orders as to costs." Copy of the order of the Hon'ble National Commission is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure VIII.
12. Thereafter, the Regional P.F. Commissioner (Pension) has complied with the directions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by granting pension @ 835/- per month to Sri V. Balaraman Pillai. A copy of the Pension Payment Order No.KR/TVM/00077417 issued to Sri V. Balaraman Pillai is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-IX. It is re-iterated that the appellant's claim that he is eligible for Rs.3000/- as monthly pension is totally misleading. The Regional P.F. Commissioner has granted eligible pension to him as per the directions of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Justice Ashok Bhan.J, President and B.K.Taimni, Member. No Forum has ever ordered that the appellant is eligible for a pension of Rs.3000/- per month.
13. In view of the above, it is once again stated that this office has implemented the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the appellant's grievances have been properly addressed as per the directions of the Commission and the provisions contained in the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995 as is evident from Annexure-IX. It is also brought to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Information Commissioner that the appellant Sri V. Balaraman Pillai has conveniently suppressed the fact that the second appeal filed by him was heard by another Information Commissioner and that the decision of the Central Information Commission shall be binding as per Section 19(7) of the RTI Act 2005.
14. Under these circumstances, it is humbly requested that the show cause notice against the CPIO Sri Varghese K. Daniel may kindly be withdrawn by accepting the explanation given above. It is also requested that this reply may be treated as the Action Taken Report of the First Appellate Authority. A detailed reply is already furnished to the appellant vide Annexure V.
4. After hearing the respondent authority and perusing the records available, the Commission finds that the respondent authority has provided all the information to the appellant and the explanation is satisfactory. 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.
CIC/BS/A/2016/000307 Page 8 Addresses of the parties: 1. The CPIO under RTI, EPFO, M/o Labour, RO:Kerala, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-6955004. 2. Shri V. Balaraman Pillai, TC-36/628 Krishnassery Lane Eanchakkal Vallakkadavu, PO- Thiruvananthapuram-6955008. CIC/BS/A/2016/000307 Page 9