Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Dev Narayan Thakur vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 16 July, 2020

Author: Vanaja N Sarna

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                            केंद्रीय सच
                                      ु ना आयोग
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
                            Baba Gangnath Marg
                       मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
                       Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                                           File no.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/100553

In the matter of:
Deo Narayan Thakur
                                                             ...Appellant
                                      VS
CPIO/APFC
Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO)
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, R Block, Rd No. 6,
Patna - 800 001
                                                             ...Respondent
RTI application filed on          :   25/09/2018
CPIO replied on                   :   Not on Record
First appeal filed on             :   06/11/2018
First Appellate Authority order   :   Not on record
Second Appeal dated               :   03/01/2019
Date of Hearing                   :   14/07/2020
Date of Decision                  :   14/07/2020

The following were present:

Appellant: Not present and Mobile numbers available in the appeal are not valid Respondent: Shri Brijesh kumar, RPFC II and CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:

During the hearing of second appeal in the Central Information Commission on 08/06/2018 & 24/07/2018, the CPIO said that the payment of EPF dues of workers of RD Lamp BR-5712 and M/s Jupiter Lamp BR - 1213 will be settled in one month. But after the lapse of more than two months the settlement of EPF dues has not been done. The appellant wants to know the reason for the delay and as to when the said payment would be made.
1
Grounds for filing Second Appeal Both CPIO and FAA have not provided any reply.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present at the VC Venue despite duly served notice on 29.06.2020 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED970937544IN. His mobile numbers available in the second appeal are not valid anymore. Therefore, he could not be contacted over phone also. He has not even sent a written submission to plead his case and therefore the Commission finds it appropriate to decide the case on merits.
The CPIO submitted that the RTI application was received in the RTI Section on 10.10.2018. The said RTI application was not submitted to the CPIO. He further submitted that the first appeal was received in the RTI Cell on 26.11.2018, however, the same was also not put up to the CPIO/FAA. The concerned officials have been showcaused for appropriate disciplinary action.

Observations:

The CPIO's plea stating that the RTI application and the first appeal were not put up before him by the dealing official is not acceptable. The Commission is astounded to see the state of affairs in the respondent office. The processing of RTI applications and first appeals is the internal affairs of the respondent organisation and under the Act, the CPIO and the FAA are legally bound to dispose of RTI applications and first appeals respectively. The CPIO is therefore issued a strict warning for not dealing with the RTI application properly and for poor management of the RTI Cell. He should be careful and ensure that such indiscipline does not occur in future.
Based on a perusal of the RTI application, the Commission observes that the appellant is aggrieved with non payment of EPF dues. However, it is pertinent to mention here that he asked for reasons for delay and as to when the said payment would be made. The same queries are not covered within the ambit of the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The appellant needs to understand that the Commission is not the proper fora to raise payment related grievances.
2
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no ground to provide any relief to the appellant. Moreover, he did not avail of the opportunity to plead his case. Hence, no further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 3