Central Information Commission
P K Puri vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 29 September, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/116288 -UM
Mr.P K Puri
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
341 BhavishyaNidhiBhawan Zonal Office
Bandra East Mumbai 400 051
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.09.2021
Date of Decision : 29.09.2021
Date of RTI application 20.01.2020
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 02.03.2020
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 11.06.2020
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information regarding reply of his letter and status of his application related to revision of pension to which no reply has been received so far.
Page 1 of 3Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. 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.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr.P K Puri present through AC.
Respondent: Mr. Vashishit Narayan, Assistant PF Commissioner, present through VC.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that he had sought information regarding action taken report on his application which was regarding revision of his pension etc. The Appellant further stated that no correct reply has been furnished by the Respondent. The Appellant requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent submitted that a day before hearing he had furnished a reply to the Appellant. He reiterated the same during the hearing. When queried the Respondent submitted that he has joined the office on 18.09.2021 and the delay in replying to the RTI application was done by the then CPIO i.e Mr. Nikhil Chand Jhade, Regional PF Commissioner-II, who is now transferred to Regional PF Office Vashi, Navi Mumbai.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that there was inordinate and inexplicable delay in replying to the RTI application by the then CPIO i.e Mr. Nikhil Chand Jhade, which is against the spirit of the RTI act. The Commission further observes that vide the reply filed by the current CPIO on 27.09.2021 clarifications are sought from the Appellant. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to Page 2 of 3 seek the said clarifications from the Appellant regarding the information sought within 1 week of the receipt of this order and further wait for 10 days for his reply. If he gives the reply then the CPIO is directed to furnish the said information to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of his response under the intimation to the Commission. The Commission also directs the then CPIO i.e Mr. Nikhil Chand Jhade, Regional PF Commissioner-II, to show-cause why action should not be taken for the above said misconduct and negligence in dealing with the RTI application and also directs him to explain why penal action should not be taken against him as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also directs the Respondent Authority to pay a compensation of Rs 5.000/- to the Appellant for the harassment and trauma caused to him due to its inaction.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(UdayMahurkar) (उदयमाहूरकर) ू नाआयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 29.09.2021 Page 3 of 3