Central Information Commission
Mr. M P Srivastava vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 18 March, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003432/11550
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003432
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. M. P. Srivastava
Urmila Bhavan, Road No. 14A,
East Ashok Nagar, Kankarbagh,
Patna --20.
Respondent : Mr. Amit Vashist
Public Information Officer & RPFC-II, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour, Govt. Of India Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi --110066.
RTI application filed on : 09/09/2010 PIO replied : Not Replied First appeal filed on : 15/10/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 25/10/2010 Second Appeal received on : 06/12/2010 Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought information regarding the 56th Annual Report for the year 2008-2009 of the EPFO, according to which there are 309 unexempted establishments and 75 exempted establishments. But the period of these fault for which arrears relate and the details of legal actions for release of the amount in arrears and also the details of prosecution launched against the responsible persons of the defaulting establishments as laid down in the EPF Act, have not been mentioned against each of the establishment.
1. Mention the period of the default In respect of each defaulting establishment.
2. Specify the details of the action taken against the defaulting employers as required under section 8B, 8C, 8F, 14, 14(1B), 14(2A), 14A, 14AA, 14B, of the EPF Act read with para 76 of the EPF Scheme and also under section 405/406/409 IPC.
3. Provide with the details of those amounts already fallen in arrear with the period of the default subsequent to the period for which amount assessed have already been incorporated in the annual report.
4. Mention the details of action taken against all the erring officials, who have not taken actions against the defaulting establishment in time which resulted In mounting up of these arrears as these arrears must not have accumulated in 1 month or 2-3 months.
Reply of PIO:
Not replied. First Appeal:
No information given by CPIO.
Order of the FAA:
FAA refused to entertain the appeal of the applicant stating that they were not the concerned appellate authorities of the region. FAA also ordered appellant to file an appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority of the Region.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information given by PIO and appeal disposed off by FAA without providing any information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. M. P. Srivastava on video conference from NIC-Patna Studio; Respondent : Mr. Amit Vashist, Public Information Officer & RPFC-II; Mr. V. D. Jawale, RPFC-II, NIzamabad (AP) The information sought by the Appellant would be available at 120 different offices of the organizations. The PIO has transferred the RTI application to the 120 office some which have sent the information to the Appellant. The Appellant has identified that if MIS 110 & 111 for the quarter ending March 2009 provided by the PIO it would meet the information need that he has. Discussion with the Appellant,- who is a former Enforcement Officer,- seems to indicate that if this information were to be put-up every year at the end of March it would be useful for all the citizens to be able to verify and understand the performance of EPFO. Hence the Commission under it powers under Section 19(8)(a) of the RTI Act directs the PIO to ensure that the information obtained in NIS-110 & 111 is displayed on the website for the period January to March 2010 and updated each year before 30 May of the subsequent year. This is a requirement being specified by the Commission under Section-4(1)(b)(xvii) Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 05 April 2011.
The PIO is also directed to ensure that that the information obtained in NIS-110 & 111 is displayed on the website for the period January to March 2010 and updated each year before 30 May of the subsequent year. This is a requirement being specified by the Commission under Section-4(1)(b)(xvii). The PIO is directed to send a compliance report along with the url address where the information has been uploaded to [email protected].
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 18 March 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PBR)