Central Information Commission
Sandeep Kumar vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 18 August, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/634500
Shri Sandeep kumar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Date of Hearing : 08.08.2025
Date of Decision : 08.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.03.2024
PIO replied on : 06.08.2025
First Appeal filed on : 03.05.2024
First Appellate Order on : 07.08.2025
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 09.08.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.03.2024 seeking information on following points:-
1. "As per Head office letter no. HRM/IA-8(1)/2024/212 dated 01-01 2024, the 78 officers has been promoted to the post of RPFC-1. It is observed that the officers below me in seniority list has been promoted to RPFC-1 (seniority list in respect of RPFC-Il circulated vide H.O. office order no. HRM/S-
1(3)/2016/4728/14834 dated 14-12-2022). It is requested to provide me the grounds on which the promotion of undersigned has not been considered to the post of RPFC-I by the Departmental promotion committee in the meeting held on 26-12-2023
2. It is also requested to provide me with the certified copy of the portion of the minutes of the Departmental promotion committee's meeting held on 26-12- 2023 related to me (along with APAR dossier & enclosures related to me) wherein the grounds on which undersigned is not promoted is mentioned.
3. Undersigned has filed a grievance no. 2024_PRM_3210 dated 21-02-2024 on HR soft portal of EPFO. Till today undersigned has not received the reply to the grievance after passage of 34 days It is requested to provide the status and reply of undersigned grievance on HR soft portal.
4. Undersigned has filed appeal against the APAR 2020-21 vide representation dated 05-01-2024, which has been forwarded to HO by 20, Hubli on 24-01-2024. However till today undersigned has not received the order/final decision w.r.t my appeal. As per DOPT instructions in the DOPT Page 1 ОМ по. 21011/1/2005-Estt(A)(Pt-II) dated 14-05-2009, the decision should be taken on the representation w.r.t APAR within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the representation. It is requested to apprise undersigned the reason for the delay in decision on the representation w.r.t APAR of 2020-21 as more than 60 days has passed after receipt of the representation at HO. It is also requested to provide the copy of the order passed w.r.t the undersigned representation dated 05-01-2024 w.r.t APAR of 2020-21.
5. Undersigned has filed representation dated 05-01-2024 regarding disclosure of the APAR for the year 2018-19 & 2019-20 which has been forwarded to HO by ZO, Hubli on 24-01-2024. However till today the APARs has not been disclosed to undersigned. It is requested to provide me the reason for non-disclosure of the APAR of the year 2018-19 & 2019-20 to undersigned despite the passage of 3 years since the submission of APARs by undersigned. It is requested to provide the status of undersigned representation dated 05-01-2024 regarding disclosure of the APAR for the year 2018-19 & 2019-20. It is also requested to provide the copy of the APARs of 2018-19 & 2019-20 undersigned with remarks of the reporting and reviewing officers.
6. It is requested to provide to undersigned the copy of the APAR of under signed for the year 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 with remarks of the reporting and reviewing officers."
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.05.2024.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Further the appellant received the information by the CPIO as on 06.08.2025, stating "On the basis of records available and inputs placed before the DPC, the applicant's case was considered "UnFit" for promotion as per minutes of DPC dated 26-12-2023.
Certified copy of the minutes of Departmental promotion Committee (DPC) meeting dated 26.12.2023 for recommending promotion to the post of RPFC-I, resulting issue of promotion order No. HRM/-A-8(1/2024/212 dated 01-01- 2024, is enclosed."
ETC.....
The FAA further disposed of the appeal, vide order dated 07.08.2025, stating, " Whereas an Appeal dated 03.05.2024 has been filed by Shri Sandeep Kumar under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Applicant has mentioned in his Appeal that CPIO has not provided any information on his RTI Application dated 27.03.2024.
Whereas the CPIO (HRM-I) has furnished the replies of the RTI Application of the Appellant on 06.08.2025 to the applicant (Copy enclosed). As such the information has been provided by the CPIO. The appeal is accordingly disposed. The CPIO is advised to adhere to the prescribed timelines in future."
ETC....
Page 2 Written submission dated 07.08.2025 has been provided by the respondents stating, "Respected Sir, Please refer to RTI application dated 27.03.2024 and first appeal dated 03.05.2024 in respect of Shri Sandeep Kumar.
In this regard, it is informed that the Reply to the aforesaid RTI application and Appeal has been disposed of vide letters dated 06.08.2025 and 07.08.2025 respectively (copies enclosed). Further. it is informed that the delay in responding was due to administrative exigencies and a shortage of staff in the office. The same may please be condoned."
ETC.....
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Uday Gupta, RPFC-II, participated in the hearing. The Appellant submits that information has been provided, but timely reply to the RTI application was not furnished, with approximately 1.5 years of delay. The Respondent reiterates that the delay was due to administrative exigencies and shortage of staff.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response has been provided by the Respondent.
Further commission takes note of the delayed reply of the CPIO and expresses severe displeasure over his conduct for not having provided any reply to the RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of RTI Act. Commission cautions the PIO to remain extremely careful in future and acquaint himself with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, so that such lapses do not reoccur. No further action lies.
The matter stands disposed of.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)