M Rajangam vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 28 July, 2021

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

M Rajangam vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 28 July, 2021

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                       के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                               Central Information Commission
                                   बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                                Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/143929-UM

Mr. M Rajangam

                                                                               ....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
                                             VERSUS
                                               बनतम

CPIO,
EPFO, Regional Office, S-1,
TNHB, Phase III, Sathuvachari, Vellore-632009,
Tamil Nadu
                                                                               प्रतर्वतदीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing       :              20.07.2021
Date of Decision      :              28.07.2021

Date of RTI application                                                      25-08-2019
CPIO's response                                                              04-10-2019
Date of the First Appeal                                                     11-07-2019
First Appellate Authority's response                                         Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                         11-09-2019

                                            ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the details of enhancement of his Pension as per Rule.

The CPIO vide letter dated 04.10.2019, informed the Appellant, as under:-

"With reference to your RTI application it is informed that the petitioner is not eligible for enhancement of pension as no contributions option have been received / submitted."

Page 1 of 2

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal.The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide the information and take action.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent, Respondent: Mr. R. Ganesh, Assistant provided Commissioner, present through VC, The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and Mr. Murgan, Network Engineer NIC studio at Thiruvannamalai confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that the Appellant had sought information regarding denial of enhanced pension to him as per the rules. The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 04.10.2019 they had furnished a reply to the Appellant. The Respondent further said that the Appellant had raised his grievance issues in his the RTI application.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission observes that a proper reply has not been furnished by the Respondent. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and furnish a precise and an updated revised reply to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित एवं सत्यानपत प्रनत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 दिनांक / Date: 28.07.2021 Page 2 of 2

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission