Central Information Commission
Sohan Singh Rajpurohit vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 15 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/EPFOG/C/2022/614919
Sohan Singh Rajpurohit ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Employees Provident Fund
Organization, Regional Office,
Delhi (North), RTI Cell, 28,
Community Centre, Wazirpur
Industrial Area, New
Delhi-110052. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08/05/2023
Date of Decision : 08/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20/09/2021
CPIO replied on : 13/01/2022
First appeal filed on : 17/01/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 14/02/2022
Complaint dated : 11/03/2022
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2021 seeking the following information:1
"Kindly supply the certified/ stamped copy of relevant documents to support the reply given by APFC,PGHS NEW,EPFO DELHI NORTH WAZIRPUR Delhi in response to complaint no. DELNO/E/2021/18315 registered on EPFIGMS on 06/09/21 that Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society (EPF) , New Delhi was set up in the year 1917, kindly provide copy of registration of society and list of trusties with rule/constitution of society which prove that it is not covered under EPF & MP, Act-1952.
Kindly supply the certified/ stamped copy of relevant documents to support the reply given by APFC, PGHS NEW, EPFO DELHI NORTH WAZIRPUR Delhi in response to complaint no. DELNO/E/2021/18315 registered on EPFIGMS on 06/09/21 that Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society (EPF), New Delhi has been covered under Provident Fund Act of 1925 kindly supply the copy of rules regarding this.
Kindly supply the certified/ stamped copy of relevant documents to support the reply given by APFC, PGHS NEW, EPFO DELHI NORTH WAZIRPUR Delhi in response to complaint no. DELNO/E/2021/18315 registered on EPFIGMS on 06/09/21 that Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society (EPF), New Delhi was recognized by the Income Tax Department in 1946 kindly supply the copy of recognition certificate of income tax department.
Kindly supply the certified/ stamped copy of relevant documents to support the reply given by APFC,PGHS NEW,EPFO DELHI NORTH WAZIRPUR Delhi in response to complaint no. DELNO/E/2021/18315 registered on EPFIGMS on 06/09/21 that in Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society (EPF) , New Delhi 51 DAV Colleges (including DAV College Jalandhar) all over India are reporting compliance under Provident Fund Act of 1925 and Accordingly, it has not been covered under EPF & MP, Act-1952.
Kindly supply the certified/ stamped copy of relevant documents to support the reply given by APFC, PGHS NEW, EPFO DELHI NORTH WAZIRPUR Delhi in response to complaint no. DELNO/E/2021/18315 registered on EPFIGMS on 06/09/21 that Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society (EPF), New Delhi. The PF of all the College employees is being deducted at the rate of 10 percent of basic pay plus DA and it is justified and up to the satisfaction of authority replying.
kindly supply the certified/ stamped copy of relevant documents which prove that an establishment can follow two different provident fund acts for its employee i.e. 2 EPF & MP, Act-1952 for some employees and Provident Fund Act of 1925 for some other employees."
The CPIO furnished reply to the complainant 13.01.2022 stating as under:
"In this regard, it is intimated that the Information does not pertain to Regional Office, Delhi (North). However, matter is forwarded to the Trust i.e., M/s DAV College Trust and management society (DL/6528) for furnish information with documentary proof."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed First Appeal dated 17.01.2022. FAA's order, dated 14.02.2022, directed the CPIO (Exemption) to provide complete information to the appellant without any cost within 05 days.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Deepak Kant, APFC & CPIO present through intra- video conference.
The Complainant while reiterating the contents of RTI Application expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply on two counts. Firstly, the information furnished by the CPIO was not in consonance with the information sought and secondly, the certified copies of annexed documents were not supplied by the CPIO. For which, the Complainant prayed the Commission to penalize the CPIO as per RTI Act.
In response to Complainant's contentions, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 02.05.2023, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
"....This is with reference to Order of First Appellant Authority bearing no. Roan, North/RTI/Appea'/2021-22/3992 dated 14.02.2022 and information furnished by then CPIO Sh. Pushpendra, vide his letter no.- E/DL/6528/1019/6137, dated 16.02.2022. Consequent upon filing of Second Appeal with the Hon'ble CIC 3 the reply furnished by then CPIO has been revisited by the present CPIO and the point wise information sought is as under:-
i) The information sought is not available with the Office. However, ownership returns in Form-5A with list of participating units (Annexure-A) and copy of Particular for grant of Relaxation/Exemption submitted by M/s DAV College Trust And Management Society (Annexure-B) are enclosed.
ii) Downloaded copy of the Establishment coverage details from the EPF0 website www.epfindia.gov.in is attached (Annexure C) Copy of Exemption Notification dated 28/08/2013 under section 17(1)(a) of the EPF Act,1952 issued by the Central Govt along with the list of units of the establishment governed by the provisions of the EPF Act, 1052 Is attached and marked as Annexure-D(Colly).
iii) Copy of Income Tax Recognition Certificate is not available. However as per the Particulars for grant of Relaxation/Exemption submitted by M/s DAV College Trust And Management Society initial recognition was granted vide letter/order no. 8-
B(1) dated 03/07/1947. (Annexure -B)
iv) List of units of the establishment complying in the DAV College Trust and Management Society EPF are attached(Annexure -D) .Also copy of the DAV College Trust and Management Society EPF Trust Rules are attached and marked as (Annexure-E) As per Rule -4 of the Trust Rules College Employees and Aided School Employees are not eligible for the EPF Trust membership. The colleges and Aided Schools are out of the jurisdiction/domain of EPFO and the information sought is not available with this office.
v) The Employees of Colleges and Aided Schools are not governed by the EPF Trust Rules as per its Rule 4. The CPIO is not supposed to interpret the provisions of any Act/Scheme.
vi) Establishment Trust Rules approved and Notified by the Central Govt are enclosed as Annexure-E."
To a query from the Commission, the CPIO further explained that the records of PF Trusts are exempt from PF Act and that these are administered and under the jurisdiction of the respective State Government Authorities where EPFO has no role to play. The CPIO in addition facilitated a detailed discussion on the functioning of above mentioned Trusts. Lastly, he volunteered to resend a certified copy each of the relevant information / documents to the Complainant.
4Decision The Commission at the outset upon scrutiny of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties observes that the information by the Complainant seems to be vague and unspecific in nature which does not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
For better understanding the mandate of RTI Act, the Complainant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. In this regard, his is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information 5 and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied In view of the above, the Complainant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, considering the contentions of the Complainant during hearing, the Commission views adversely the conduct of then CPIO by not discharging his duties casts upon him in the letter and spirit of RTI Act, by not providing the certified copies of relevant information as specifically sought for in the RTI application. However, no penal action is initiated against the then CPIO for the want of malafide on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:6
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Nonetheless, the CPIO is strictly cautioned to exercise due diligence while responding to RTI Applications, failing which strict view may be taken for such recurrent lapses in future.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 7