N Gangaatharan vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 5 July, 2024

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

N Gangaatharan vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 5 July, 2024

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/2023/121454

Shri N Gangaatharan.                                             ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम

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


Date of Hearing                           :   03.07.2024
Date of Decision                          :   04.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner            :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :           06.01.2023
PIO replied on                    :           12.01.2023
First Appeal filed on             :           04.03.2023
First Appellate Order on          :           NA
2 Appeal/complaint admitted on
 nd                               :           22.05.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.01.2023 seeking information on following 7 points:-

"01 Apart from issuing a GSR by the Govt of India to this effect Rule 26 6 of EPF Misc Act 1952 during 1996 EPFO may inform the various modes of publicity given to the above amended provision to reach out to the Establishments and the employees as a special or new or additional benefit stop Please specify or elaborate stop Copies may be supplied duly authenticated 02 Circulars instructions issued as a follow up measure to implement the above benefit 1 above to the employees through the Employers or establishments Copies may please be arranged to be supplied 03 Internal circulars if any issued with instructions to the Field Officers or PF Instructors as to the method of reviewing the implementation of the above benefits 1 above to the employees stop Copies may please be arranged to be supplied 04 Remarks or queries raised by the field officers during Inspection between 16.11.1995 and 31.12.2022 (TTDC) and clarification given to the above doubts/queries if any stop Copies of queries may please be arranged to be supplied Etc."

Page 1 of 3

The CPIO, Regional PF Commissioner 1, EPFO, Zonal Office, Chennai vide letter dated 12.01.2023 transferred the RTI Application to CPIO, Regional PF Commissioner 1, EPFO, Chennai North Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 15.05.2023 stated as under:-

"1. Para 26(6) of the EPF Scheme already exists as on 1996. No such data sought with respect to publicity done during 1996 available in this office.

2. Not applicable.

3. Not applicable.

4. No such information available.

5. No such information available.

6. No such information available in this office.

7. The phrase 'any feedback received' is not clear as to what the appellant is referring to."

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

A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 20.06.2024 which has been taken on record.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Govindarajan, APFC, Chennai The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation. However, in his written submission dated 20.06.2024 he inter alia prayed to direct the RPFC Chennai North to initiate action to sanction the pension on actual salary to all the Pre 31.08.2004 retirees within reasonable time; to warn the RPFC Chennai North for non-issuance/ delay in reply and to warn/ impose fine for concealing the facts of the steps taken to implement Section 26 (6) amendment to the EPF and MP Act 1952 and introduction of Rule 11 (3) to the EPS Scheme, 1952 in all the member establishments under his jurisdiction.

Shri Govindarajan stated that information as per available record has been provided to the Appellant at the first appeal stage vide order dated 15.05.2023 and that they have nothing more to add.

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the Page 2 of 3 provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in this matter. The Commission however notes that there has been a delay in providing the information by Regional PF Commissioner 1, EPFO, Chennai North subsequent to transfer of the RTI application for which he/ she is cautioned to ensure that timelines stipulated under the RTI Act,2 005 are strictly complied with in future.

The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off as such.

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

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission