Central Information Commission
Rajnish Ratnakar vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 22 May, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
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/2024/637758
Shri Rajnish Ratnakar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Employees Provident Fund Organisation ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.05.2025
Date of Decision : 20.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.04.2024
PIO replied on : 13.05.2024
First Appeal filed on : 16.05.2024
First Appellate Order on : 07.06.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 28.08.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"1WHETHER MAIL SENT BY ME ON 16TH FEB 2024 AT 8.43 AM TO SECRETARY MAM MLABE HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR NOT IN WHICH I HAVE SPECIFICALLY PRAYED TO HER TO REGISTER FIR AGAINST CRIMINAL OFFICERS OF EPFO ZONAL OFFICE PATNA AND ALL PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVT OF BIHAR UNDER VARIUOS SECTION OF IPC FOR GIVING WRONG DECLERATION AND BREACHING AND VIOLATING EPF AND MP ACT 1952 WITH MORE THAN THREE LAKH FIFTY THOUSAND CONTRACTUAL TEACHERS IN BIHAR.
2 WHETHER NESESSARY STEPS AND MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY SECRETARY MAM IN THIS SERIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENCE OR NOT. 3 IF ACTION, STEPS AND MEASURES HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAKEN, THEN KINDLY PROVIDE ME ITS DETAILS ALSO."
The CPIO/Accounts Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Patna vide letter dated 13.05.2024 replied as under:-
1. "Information not available in EPFO, RO, Patna. Further, information not attracts to any legal action.2. Please refer to Sl. No. 1
3. Please refer to Sl. No. 1."Page 1 of 2
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.05.2024. The FAA vide order dated 07.06.2024 stated as under:-
"The reply filed by CPIO earlier has been perused. The CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply as sought by the applicant within next 7 working days, under intimation to the undersigned."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant requesting for issuance of summons against the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment for non receipt of information.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar - Enforcement Officer/CPIO, EPFO, Patna was heard through video conference during hearing.
The Appellant has chosen not to attend the hearing. The Respondent present during hearing contended that response based on available records had been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of the mandate of the RTI Act.
Decision Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing averments of the Respondent, the Commission notes that queries raised by the Appellant have been answered appropriately by the public authority. The Appellant has chosen not to contest the case. Therefore, no further intervention is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
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 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)