Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Kamalika Neogy vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 25 March, 2026

                            के ीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                         बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं      ा /Second Appeal No.          CIC/EPFOG/A/2025/609422




Kamalika Neogy                                         ....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                  VERSUS
                                   बनाम

CPIO,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Pune                                              ... ितवादीगण /Respondents

Date of Hearing                  : 24/03/2026
Date of Decision                 : 24/03/2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                   Ashutosh Chaturvedi

Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:

RTI application filed on                  08/01/2025
CPIO replied on                           07/02/2025
First appeal filed on                     08/02/2025
FAA's order dated                         18/02/2025
Second Appeal dated                       25/02/2025

Information sought

:

The appellant has filed RTI application dated 08/01/2025 seeking the following information:

"...1. Please provide the duration period of his employment in Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Limited.

2. Provide me with his employment details From the Year 2023 till current time working details - Employer Name and Address.

3. Current Provident Fund Number and UAN number,

4. Current Company Name and Address..."

2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant on 07/02/2025 stated as under:

"....Further, it is stated that, the Hon'ble CIC, in its decision in the matter of Shri Kuldeep Parashar vs CPIO, EPFO Bangalore, Karnataka (File No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465 dated 24.01.2023) has observed that "The Supreme Court has clearly observed in Registrar, Supreme Court v. R.S. Misra [2017 SCC OnLine Del 11811] that the provisions of the RTI Act are for achieving transparency and not for making available information to be used in other proceedings, especially if there are other remedies available to the persons who seek the information, under another statute."

In view of above, as Shri Abhishek Majumder has refused to give his consent for disclosure of his personal information, the same cannot be disclosed in light of section 8(1) (e) and 8(1) (j) of RTI, Act, 2005.

Accordingly your RTI Application is disposed off."

3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant filed the First Appeal with the first Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 18/02/2025 stated as under:

"...Further the Hon'ble CIC decision dated 24.01.2023 in Shri Kuldeep parashar vs CPIO, EPFO Bengaluru (Electronic city) (File No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465) observed that "The information sought in the RTI application pertains to personal information of a third party (Spouse), which is held by the Respondent Public Authority in fiduciary capacity and the same has been appropriately denied by the respondent U/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act"

Further the Hon'ble CIC in decision dated 25.07.2023 (file No. CIC/EPFO G/A/2022/641146) Bikash kumar vs CPIO's of EPFO Bengaluru (Electronic city), Hyderabad (Madhapur) and Kandivali-West observed that "the PF details comes under the purview of "personal information" which is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act"

Hence, in response to your RTI Appeal application dated 08/02/2025, it is concluded that reply provided by CPIO on 07/02/2025 is in order and within prescribed time limit and the provisions of section 8(1) (e) and 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 have been appropriately applied.

Hence the appeal is disposed off."

4. Challenging the decision of the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant filed the Instant Second Appeal on 25/02/2025.

Written Submission of the Respondent dated 10/03/2026 is taken on record.

5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent Respondent: S.P Shrimali AFFC/CPIO participated in the hearing on VC The Appellant has not availed the opportunity to participate in the hearing despite due notice of hearing. The Respondent reiterates the fast of the case and further submits that the information sought by the Appellant is denied under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

DECISION In the light of the facts of the case, the material on record and the submission made by the Respondent, Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided. No legal infirmity is found in the response furnished by the Respondent.

It is further directed to the Respondent to send the copy of the written submission 10/03/2026 to the Appellant free of cost via speed post and email within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and accordingly send a compliance report to the commission within 7 days thereafter.

No further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case. The Appeal stands disposed of.

Sd/-

Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशुतोष चतुवदी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/ Date: 24.03.2026 Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2025/609422 Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Singh Meena (राम िसंह मीना) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011- 26715467 Address of the Parties:

1. CPIO EPFO Regional Office Pune 2 Akurdi, P.C.M.C. Commercial Complex, Sector-28, Akurdi Pradhikaran, Pune 411044

2. Kamalika Neogy Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2025/609422 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)