Central Information Commission
Ram Krishna Mehta Suman vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 16 November, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
Second Appeal No.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/120628
Shri Ram Krishna Appellant
Versus
CPIO, EPFO Respondent
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 20.11.2017, CPIO reply - Nil, FAO - Nil, Second appeal filed on 26.03.2018,
Hearing on 16.11.2018;
Proceedings on 26.06.2018: Appellant absent, Public Authority represented by CPIO. Mr. Rakesh
Kumar Sinha, Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner. Directions, Show-cause and compensation notice
issued.
Proceedings on 16.11.2018: Appellant absent, Public Authority represented by CPIO. Mr. Hansraj
Rao, Mr. S.K. Padhy and Mr. Brajesh Kumar
Date of Decision - 16.11.2018: Disposed of
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought information regarding his letter dated 22.04.17 pertaining to Pension Upgradation. He specifically sought (i) the receipt to the letter submitted by him on 22.04.17, (ii) Certified copy of Action Taken report and Investigation report. The appellant not having received any reply from the CPIO or the FAA filed an appeal before the CIC.
2. The Commission's order dated 27.08.2018:
2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, representing the Kolkata Regional Office, submitted that there was error in calculation of the appellant's pension. The appellant had requested for the revision of his pension and the PPO was given from the Patna Regional Office.
3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar stated that the input data sheet of appellant's pension was sent form the Kolkata Office to Patna office and action was awaited from Patna Office.
CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/120628 Page 1
4. The Commission finds that both Kolkata and Patna Regional Offices have caused delay in addressing the appellant's grievance. The Public Authority has erred in calculating the appellant's pension and the same has not been rectified despite the lapse of eight months. The officers have failed to respond to the RTI queries and address the complaint reflected in the application. It is the duty of the CPIO as an employee of EPFO to facilitate supply of the calculation sheet of pension to the appellant along with explanation of the errors on calculation as claimed by the appellant, if any.
5. In view of the above, the Commission directs the CPIO, Patna Regional Office, to provide the certified copies of the documents sought by the appellant, in co-
ordination with Kolkata Regional Office. The CPIO is directed to inform the appellant time within which his grievance will be resolved.
6. The Commission directs Mr. S. K. Padhee, CPIO, Kolkata Regional Office as on date of filing of RTI, to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for not furnishing the information sought. The Public Authority is also required to explain why it should not be directed to compensate the appellant for the delay caused in furnishing the information that caused delay in payment of rectified pension amount.
Decision :
3. Mr. S.K. Padhy submitted the following explanation to the show-cause notice dated 27.08.2018:
"On receipt of the said RTI Application dated 20.11.2017 the same information was sought from the concerned Asst. P.F. Commissioner, Pension along with his RTI Application duly attaching Grievance Letter dated 22.4.2017. The Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Pension) replied vide his letter dated 02.02.2018(copy attached), (Annexure 'C'). The reply was in English. In it he flatly denied that the letter dated 24.4.2017 has ever been received by his Branch. (Thus the reply to the RTI Applicant , should have seen no such letter dated 24.04.2017 has been received and question of providing Action Taken Report Or Investigation Report does not arise). Instead, the CPIO concentrated on the Grievance part of the Applicant. The Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Pension) had categorically stated that the Pension of the applicant is less than the Other Pensioners quoted with PF NO/PPO Number in the letter dated 22.4.2017. Because, this applicant had less pensionable service, also he had left the service before attaining the age of Superannuation. This Grievance part of the Applicant had been properly addressed in the letter of CPIO dated 09.02.2018, (Annexure 'A'). The applicant had again applied 34 / 39 through RTI which was received by CPIO, Kolkata on 06.04.2018. While trying to redress it the Pension Section discovered that instead of making entry in the field of Date of Leaving as 01.04.2013 the entry was made as 01.04.2012. It is humbly submitted that while CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/120628 Page 2 entering the data in respect of somebody in pension branch, there are approximately 50 fields and Dealing Assistant makes entry of approximately 20 such persons data daily. So while entering the data for almost 1000 fields daily such inadvertent mistakes may possible. While disposing the first RTI Application on 02.02.2018 the concerned Pension Branch might have depended only on the data of application software. Because the member had given reference to two other pensioners who were getting more Pension despite same data. While disposing the second RTI Application on 29.5.2018 the pension section has detected wrong data entry after going exhaustibly through physical documents. It is again humbly submitted that CPIO was not in administrative charge of around 10 different branches in the office. He requisitions the individual Branch Officers, collects information and furnishes the same as collected from individual PI~s, after translating them, if required (In this case Hindi). In this case, while giving final reply to the applicant on 12.06.2018 the wrong entry in EPFO software had already been rectified by Regional Office, Kolkata."
4. Mr. Hansraj Rao, Mr. S.K. Padhy and Mr. Brajesh Kumar explained that the appellant was intimated that the difference between his pension and the pension amount of his two fellow employees was due to the difference in service period. The appellant was also informed that his grievance related to payment of reduced pension was rectified.
5. The Commission finds that the CPIOs have made satisfactory attempts to address the grievance reflected in the appellant's RTI application. The appellant has received complete information and the explanation submitted by the CPIO is reasonable and satisfactory; therefore penalty proceedings against Mr. S.K. Padhee are dropped.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/120628 Page 3