Central Information Commission
Bhanumati Nath vs Food Corporation Of India on 7 April, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/FCIND/A/2025/108798
Bhanumati Nath .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO : Food Corporation of India, ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Divisional Office, Kalpataru Complex,
Distt. Purba Budrwan - 713101
Date of Hearing : 06-04-2026
Date of Decision : 06-04-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Khushwant Singh Sethi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23-09-2024
CPIO replied on : 19-11-2024
First appeal filed on : 13-12-2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 10-01-2025
2nd Appeal dated : 03-03-2025
CIC/FCIND/A/2025/108798 Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23-09-2024 for seeking the information and the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19-11-2024. The Information and reply sought in this regard is as under:
"
"Point Information Sought Reply
No.
1 PPO has been issued under EPS'95 or
Question No. 1,2, 4 are
DCPS, 1971 of West Bengal State Govt
hypothetical. Public
Employees Act ?
Authority under RTI act is
not supposed to furnish
reply of Hypothetical
If the pension sanctioned in terms of EPS questions.
2. 95, who is the competent authority office of the PAG, West Bengal or office In Q. No. 3, it may be of the RPFC ? stated that Application 10D received on 05.04.2014 has already If pension sanctioned in terms of EPS'95, been rejected and
3. then what step office has taken in terms communicated by FCI, of Application 10D, which was received Z.O.(east) to the on 5th April, 2014? applicant owing to his submission of opt out option form EPS'95 and accordingly, payment has CIC/FCIND/A/2025/108798 Page 2 of 5
4. Whether higher or enhance pension in already been refunded to terms of notification dated 29.12.2022 the applicant." is entitled or not ?
2. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13-12-2024. The FAA vide its order dated 10-01-2025, upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Appellant's representative (Daughter), attended the hearing through video conference.
Respondent: Mr. Swapnil, Manager (RTI), attended the hearing through video conference.
4. The Appellant's representative stated that her father, who was a former employee of the respondent's department had expired. Hence, she sought information with respect to the PPO, pension revision payable to her mother. The appellant submitted that she sought information as to whether the PPO had been issued as per the EPS'95 or DCPS, 1971 of West Bengal State Govt Employees Act; who is the competent authority office of the PAG, West Bengal or office of the RPFC etc. The appellant submitted that the respondent had not provided the sought information.
5. The Respondent submitted that the that Application 10D received on 05.04.2014 has already been rejected and communicated by FCI, Z.O.(East) to the applicant, on account of his submission of duly filled in opt-out option form CIC/FCIND/A/2025/108798 Page 3 of 5 EPS'95 on 6th August, 1999 and accordingly, payment might have already been refunded to the applicant.
6. The Commission queried the respondent as to whether they have the PPO order. To this, the respondent submitted that the PPO order is not issued by their department. However, the respondent assured to help the appellant with the revision process, subject to its applicability, on humanitarian grounds.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that during the hearing, the respondent submitted that the PPO order is not issued by their department. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant, for point nos. 1 - explicit reply that the PPO is not issued by their department; 2 - details of competent authority; 3 - copy of the action taken report/document on letter dated 05.04.2014 & the copy of the opt out form of the appellant's husband dated 06.08.1999. The respondent shall provide the aforesaid revised reply to the appellant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission - both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper- compliance/add. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Khushwant Singh Sethi) (खुशवन्त स िंह ेठी) Information Commissioner ( ूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 06.04.2026 CIC/FCIND/A/2025/108798 Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26107026 Copy To:
1. The CPIO Food Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Kalpataru Complex, Distt. Purba Budrwan - 713101
2. The FAA, Food Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Kalpataru Complex, Distt. Purba Budrwan - 713101
3. Bhanumati Nath, CIC/FCIND/A/2025/108798 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)