Central Information Commission
Manoj Yadav vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 13 October, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2022/654648
Manoj Yadav .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Regional P.F. Commissioner-I, Employees Provident
Fund Organization (Min. of Labour & Employment),
Zonal Office-Haryana, Dr. S.P.M. Institute of Social
Security Admin Building, Sector-16-A,
Old Faridabad-121002 (Haryana).
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.05.2022
CPIO replied on : 09.06.2022
First appeal filed on : 25.07.2022
First Appellate Authority order : 23.08.2022
Second Appeal received at CIC : 13.10.2022
Date of Hearing : 13.10.2023
Date of Decision : 13.10.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
1. Copy of report forwarded by ZO Haryana as stated in Para No. (b) of above said Memo dated 04/05/2022.
2. Total Number of Group A Officer posted in Haryana Zone.Page 1 of 5
3. How many group A officers under the jurisdiction of ZO Haryana including ACC(Haryana) Zone are marking their attendance through Biometric Attendance System.
4. If the Attendance is being marked through Biometric Attendance System, please provide the copy of Officer wise/Region Wise attendance for the period Nov 2019 to Mar 2022.
5. If the Group A Officer is not marking attendance through Biometric attendance system, Is any memorandum has been issued by ACC Haryana or by HRM Head Office (i.e,same treatment forwarding a report to HO is taken by Zonal Office, Haryana.)
6. If not, what are the mandate or justifications for committing discrimination amongst officers by ACC Haryana.
7. Provide the list of Officers to whom ZO Haryana has ordered for installation of biometric machines in the room/chamber of any group A officer.
8. What is the mandate/Rules/Guidelines to install biometric attendance machines.
9. Is there any rule/regulations/guidelines/mandate for installing separate/excusive biometric machine in group A Officers room/chamber.
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 09.06.2022, as under:
1. The information cannot be disclosed as report has been sent by this office to head office in confidential category.
2. 33 (group a officers)
3. Already transferred to all regional offices under Haryana zone.
4. Already transferred to all regional offices under Haryana zone.
5. -6 The RTI act 2005 does not obligate the public authority to answer to queries or questions raised by these points is beyond scope as defined u/s 2(f) of RTI Act.
7-9 Copy om dated 03.03.2022 ministry of labour & employment (govt.
of India) forwarded by head office vide letter dated 09.03.2022.
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 25.07.2022.
• The FAA vide order dated 23.08.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
• Written submission has been received from CPIO vide letter dated 13.10.2023 as under:
This is with reference to your online RTI application No EPFOG/R/E/22/6015/05 dated 10/05/2022 received through Zonal office, Faridabad, for supplying of information on point no. 3 and 4. The required information pertaining to EPFO, RO Rohtak is as under:Page 2 of 5
The bio-metric attendance of staff is an arrangement between the employees and the employer which falls under Personal information category, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individuals. In view of above, the requested information cannot be supplied to the applicant under Rule 8(1) ( j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present Respondent: Bhupendra Yadav (RPFC-I, EPFO) Appellant has stated that he has not received the information. He further requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the information on point
1.
Upon the Commissions instance, the CPIO has submitted that the information cannot be disclosed as report has been sent by this office to head office in confidential category. He further affirmed that he would abide by the orders of the Commission.
Decision:
Commission, on the basis of submission of parties during hearing and perusal of case records, observes that Appellant is not satisfied with the reply furnished by the concerned PIO. Therefore, Commission directs the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised reply on point no 1 by furnishing the copy of report forwarded by ZO Haryana as stated in para no (b) of above said memo dated 04.05.2022, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO. As regards the other points commission is of the opinion that appropriate response has been furnished to the appellant.
In case relevant information, as sought in the instant RTI Application, pertains to some other Branch/Department, then the PIO should procure and provide the same to the Appellant. In doing so, PIO must make sure that information which is Page 3 of 5 exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the appellant. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 5 Page 5 of 5