Central Information Commission
G Sundara Moorthi vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 15 April, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/EPFOG/A/2023/104685
G Sundara Moorthi ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1.CPIO,
Regional PF.
Commissioner-II, Employees
Provident Fund Organisation,
Regional Office,
Chennai(North), RTI Cell, 37,
Royapettah High Road,
Chennai-6000 I 4. Tamil Nadu.
2. CPIO
Ministry of Labour &
Employment, Public Grievance
Cell, RTI Cell, Shram Shakti
Bhawan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi-110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 11/04/2023
Date of Decision : 11/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
1
RTI application filed on : 01/09/2022
CPIO replied on : 10/11/2022
First appeal filed on : 25/11/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 21/12/2022
2nd Appeal dated : 21/01/2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.09.2022 with Respondent no. 2 seeking the following information:
Ref: 1. My Petition addressed to the secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi-110001 by RPAD Dated 05/05/2022 and received at your end on 09/05/2022.
2. Form-23 issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organization for the Financial Year 1994-95.
I draw your attention to the above cited reference and seek the following details as per RTI Act 2005.
1. Please provide me the detail regarding registration of my petition in the register cited in reference with certified copy.
2. At present the petition cited in the reference is pending with which Official? Please provide me the detail regarding receipt of the petition by the concerned and the action taken.
3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-ll, Chennai 14 says M/s.Balaji Construction Company Ltd, Chennai-17 was closed. Please provide me the details as per records on which date it was closed? And the follow up action taken by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-ll, Chennai-14.
4. Please provide me the copy of records that is what are the follow up action taken by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-ll, chennai-14 to recover the legitimate EPF amount from M/s.Balaji Construction Company Ltd, Chennai- 17 to settle it, because Employees Provident Fund organization is accountable to the subscriber.
5. EPF amount collected by M/s. Balaji Construction Company Ltd, Chennai-17 are accountable to The Regional provident Fund commissioner-ll, Chennai -14. Hence 2 please provide me the copy of records pertaining to collecting the amount from them including Police complaint as per EPF Act anything is made so far.
6. Definitely I believe the Regional Provident Fund commissioner-ll, Chennai-14 cannot sit like a silent spectator. Because as an individual Employee I allowed the deduction with a hope that the amount will be settled as per EPF Act. Please provide me the details mentioned in the EPF Act regarding collection of money from the companies which looted the EPF amount.
7. Please provide me the copy as in records that the last amount remitted by M/s.Balaji construction company Ltd,Chennai-17.
8. Please inform me the address of the appellate Authority.
9. I already submitted Photostat copy of the cited statement(Form23) for the Financial Year 1994-95 issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organization. Why as per existing rules in Employees Provident Fund Organization the amount was not settled? lf any special rule is in force, please provide me the copy.
The CPIO/ Respondent no. 1 (upon receipt of RTI Application on transfer basis) furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 10.11.2022 stating as under -
1. "Since the petition was not addressed to this office the information is not available.
2. Since the petition was not addressed to this office the information is not available.
3. Report of the Establishment as available in the system with regard to status of the establishment is enclosed.
4. As per this office records (Arrear demand list, of Establishments) No Revenue recovery certificate with any outstanding dues in respect of the establishment M/s Balaji Construction Company Pvt Ltd is pending .
5. No recovery made as no dues exist.
6. No specific information is sought and Act is available in the EPFO website https:/lwww.epfindia.gov.in/siteen/Downloads.php
7. The Establishment was closed before computerisation. Hence, the data of the Establishment was not migrated to the new EPFO Software.
8. Details of Appellate authority is given below.
9. No PF balance exists for EPF Account No.TN/31390/54 tur EPF Account No. TIV31_3$/54.
310.Name & Address of the Appellate Authority is Ms. C. Amudha, Regional P. F. Commissioner I, Chennai(North) No.37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai- 600014.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.11.2022. FAA's order dated 21.12.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"...the CPIO in the Ministry of Labour & Employment diverted entire RTI petition in different direction.
He said in his letter that it was forwarded to PG Cell in the same Ministry. But the PG Cell stated that it didn't receive as cited in Ref No.5. So out of 9 details they sent 2 details only and the balance 7 details are yet to be provided. ln my appeal petition cited in Ref No.7, I have clearly stated without providing the basic details of my petition cited in Ref No.1 how the CPIO diverted the whole petition. But they are silent about the petition's whereabouts even after 8 months.."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent no. 1: Surendra Azad, RPFC- II & CPIO present through video conference.
Respondent no. 2: Samir Kumar Das, U.S. & CPIO along with R. S. Meena, P.G. cell (Mo L& E) present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the instant Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
Samir Kumar Das, U.S. & CPIO (Mo L&E) submitted that on receipt of the original RTI Application as also the averred petition from the Appellant in their office; the RTI Application for points no. 1 & 2 has been forwarded to their PG cell section and for the remaining points, the RTI Application has been transferred to the 4 Respondent no. 2 under Section 6(3) of RTI Act for providing the information directly to the Appellant.
Respondent no. 1 invited attention of the bench towards his latest written submission dated 06.04.2023 wherein he stated as under -
"...appellant had made an appeal seeking information predominantly on his petition dated 05.05.2022 addressed to Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment. Whereas, the said petition dated 05.05.2022 was neither found to be registered under the VIP/Non-VIP grievance in CAIU portal nor a copy of petition which was seen endorsed to the RPFC-II, Chennai - 600014 received in the office. However, the requisite information to RTI application dated 01.09.2022 which was transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to CPIO, R.O. Chennai North on 30.09.2022 have been provided by the CPIO, R.O. Chennai North vide letter dated 10.11.2022. Subsequently, on the appeal filed by the appellant on 25.11.2022, the appellant was informed that the petition dated 05.05.2022 had not been received in Regional Office, Chennai -North. Hence, the information called for vide petition dated 05.05.2022 could not be provided. Further, the appellant was also informed that the whereabouts of the petition dated 05.05.2022 was not known. Also, it is informed that the second appeal dated 21.01.2023 addressed to CIC preferred by the appellant Shri. G Sunders Moorthi is against the action taken/reply provided by CPIO, Ministry of Labour & Employment. Therefore, the CPIO, EPFO, Regional Office, Chennai - North may be exempted from the present appeal."
The Appellant interjected to contest the alleged inaction of the Respondents in passing on the buck to each other and in turn not intimating the fate of his petition dated 05.05.2022. In response to it, the Respondent no. 2 at the behest of the Commission agreed to provide a copy of the petition dated 05.05.2022 to the Respondent no. 1 (who had apparently not received a copy of the petition of the Appellant) and the latter upon receipt of it agreed to intimate the relevant outcome of it to the Appellant after proper investigation.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of all the parties observes that the Appellant restricted his arguments to the fact that relevant outcome on his petition dated 05.05.2022 has not been provided by either of the Respondents till date.
In this regard, the Commission is irked by the shoddy conduct of the CPIOs herein in having transferred the petition of the Appellant back and forth amongst their offices without providing any material information to the Appellant till date.5
Moreover, the CPIOs did not even enquire from their concerned offices/ departments, about the exact status of action taken on the said petition to facilitate relevant information to the Appellant before making oral submissions with the Commission. Such casual conduct of the CPIOs' amounts to a disregard for the proceedings of the Commission and also causing unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information. However, no penal action is initiated against them for want of ascription of any malafide intent on their part. Now, considering the efflux of time and in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission directs CPIO/ Respondent no. 2 herein to take all necessary steps to supply a copy of petition dated 05.05.2022 to the Respondent no. 1 immediately upon receipt of this order; and Respondent no. 1 upon receipt of a copy of the petition is further directed to procure the available information as sought for at points 1 & 2 (including the relevant outcome of Appellant's petition) from the concerned record holder and provide it directly to the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act. The said information should be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6