Central Information Commission
Kirti Kumar Pal vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 25 June, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/646004+646670+653078+653116+
653819+653283+653520+653567
In the matter of:
Kirti Kumar Pal
...Appellant
VS
1. APFC/CPIO,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO),
Regional Office-Noida, Nidhi Bhawan,
A-2-C, Sector-24,Noida - 201301
&
2. CPIO / RPFC - 1 Pension
&
3. CPIO (Investment), (Banking), (Finance),
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhavisya Nidhi Bhawan, 14, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
...Respondents
Date of hearing : 22.06.2020
Date of decision : 22.06.2020
File Nos. RTI application CPIO First Appeal FAA's Second
filed on replied on filed on Order on Appeal
Dated
646004 15/05/2019 14/06/2019 18/06/2019 17/07/2019 19/07/2019
646670 28/05/2019 26/06/2019 02/07/2019 25/07/2019 26/07/2019
653078 21/06/2019 17/07/2019 21/07/2019 03/09/2019 05/10/2019
653116 27/06/2019 17/07/2019 18/08/2019 18/09/2019 06/10/2019
653819 18/06/2019 17/07/2019 20/07/2019 19/08/2019 14/10/2019
653283 05/07/2019 19/07/2019 21/07/2019 03/09/2019 11/10/2019
653520 08/07/2019 10/07/2019 12/07/2019 16/07/2019 11/10/2019
653567 06/07/2019 08/07/2019 09/07/2019 16/07/2019 15/10/2019
1
Note: The above listed cases of the appellant cover similar issues raised therein, and the relief sought by the appellant as well as the arguments advanced by both the parties during the hearing were the same for all these cases. Hence, for the sake of brevity, the cases were clubbed and adjudicated by a common order. The hearing too was conducted in a similar fashion.
Information Sought:
File No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/646004 The appellant has been sanctioned monthly pension of Rs.2613/- with effect from 26.10.2017. He has been paid arrears of pension for complete three months and for broken period of October, 2017. For the purpose of calculation of arrears for the broken period of October, 2017, EPFO has taken the days of month as 30 and arrear has been paid for 5 days. In this context, the appellant has sought the following information:
1. Rule book/Accounting practice, manual, which mandates that even in a month of 31 days, only 30 days have to be reckoned for the purpose of calculation of monthly pension for fraction of the month.
2. Provide the excerpt of relevant portion of the Rule/manual.
3. Gazette notification/Circular/Excerpt of Parliament Act proving that the said rules/manual are in conformity with the EPS-95 - Pension Scheme Act, enacted by the Parliament.
4. And other related information.
File No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/646670 The appellant has sought the information regarding his representation having reference No. SRNOI/E/2019/0980. As per circular/ notification issued, EPFO grants weightage of 2 years in service period for those employees who have completed 20 years of service. But EPFO adds this benefit to the service period when pensionable salary is considered at Rs. 6500/- and not with reference to current one which is at Rs.15000/-. Appellant has stated that the said decision of EPFO is arbitrary, irrational with no justification. In this context, appellant has sought the following information:
1. Gazette notification/Circular/Excerpts of Parliament act which mandates weightage of 2 years to the pensioners exceeding eligible service of 20 years or more. Also provide following further information:2
(i) Is the Rule regarding 2 years weightage is a part of principal scheme.
(ii) Was the Rule regarding 2 years weightage later amended to extend benefit from the pensionable service to eligible service. If yes, provide specific details with relevant documents, i.e Government Order, Circular etc.
(iii) And other related information
2. Pensionable salary taken for calculation in between 01/07/2001 to 01/09/2014 w.r.t weightage period of 2 years.
3. And other related information.
File No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/653078 The appellant had made a representation to EPFO through online portal Registration No. SRNOI/E/2019/01026, with regard to discrepancy in the calculation of his pension. He has stated that the EPFO has not given satisfactory response to his grievance. In his RTI application he has made reference to the following points and has also given examples of calculation of monthly pension.
(1)As per Scheme & amendment therein, Pensionable Salary & Monthly Pension, the calculation of is pro- rata basis and should be commensurate with the Quantum of Contribution received and corresponding Contributory period before & after 01/09/2014 under respective wage ceiling Rs.6500/Rs.15000.
(2)In the calculation of monthly pension major discrepancy is in taking into account the pensionable salary With reference to what is stated above, the Appellant has sought the following information:
(a) Whether the statement of calculation of monthly pension Part (A) and pensionable salary Rs.6500 selection and methodology given by him in his RTI application is correct.
(b) Whether the calculation of monthly pension Part (B), pensionable salary Rs.11742 selection and methodology given by him in his RTI application is correct.
(c) And other related information.3
File No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/653116 The appellant had submitted a representation regarding discrepancy in the monthly pension calculation through online portal Registration No. SRNOI/E/2019/0 3794. The appellant has stated that the response given by EPFO to his representation has been vague, irrational and misinterpretation of law. Appellant had joined service on 10/4/1982 and retired on attaining the age of 58 years on 25/10/2017. For past service pension calculation, appellant has given examples in his RTI application and has also given calculation factors. In the said context, the appellant has sought the following information:
(a) Whether the FPS -71 was a Defined Contribution and Defined Benefits Scheme and employees were entitled to receive the benefits as per formula mentioned in the scheme, guaranteed by the Central Government.
(b) Whether the Valuation of Net Assets of Family Pension (FPS-71) was done before merging it with Employees Pension Fund (EPS-95). Specify the amount of surplus/ deficit.
(c) Whether the Actuaries presented feasibility report i.e. assets/liability analysis resulting in net earnings of sufficient funds to meet the liability of the existing members of the erstwhile Family Pension Scheme on 16/11/1995.
(d) And other related information.
File No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/653819 The appellant had made a representation to EPFO regarding discrepancy in monthly pension calculation through online portal bearing Registration no. SRNOI/E/2019/01704. The appellant has stated in his RTI application that the response given by EPFO to the said representation has been vague and evasive. Appellant has made a reference to the G.S.R 609 (E) Employee Pension (amendment) scheme,2014, which illustrates the calculation of the monthly Pension as under:
Monthly pension = Pensionable Salary x Pensionable Service/70 In the above context, the appellant has sought the following information with duly attested certified copies of the relevant excerpts from Gazette 4 Notification/ Circular/Accounting Manual practice, which are in conformity with Rules & regulations framed under EPS-95:
1. Whether the formula stated above is common for pensioners under wage Ceiling and actual wages/Higher Salary.
2. As on date for calculation of pensionable salary, five years average salary preceding the date of exit/superannuation is taken into account for both i.e. wages under ceiling & actual wages/higher salary. Provide answer in yes/no.
3. And other related information.
File no.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/653283 The Appellant has sought the following information regarding Valuation of Pension Fund, Audit and evaluation:
1. Whether EPS -95 is a Defined Contribution & Defined Benefits Scheme and employee is entitled to receive the benefits as per formula mentioned in EPS-95 and guaranteed by Central Government.
2. Whether the valuation of Family Pension-71 was done before merging it to the Employees Pension Fund.
3. Whether the Actuaries presented feasibility report i.e assets/ liability analysis resulting in net earning of funds sufficient enough to meet the liability of existing members of the erstwhile Family Pension Scheme as on 16/11/1995.
4. And other related information.
File no.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/653520 The appellant has quoted Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) judgement dated 12/10/2018 - P. Sasi Kumar and others Vs. Union of India - through writ petition WP(C) No.602, 13120 of 2015, wherein Hon'ble Court passed strictures about classification in four categories of employees/pensioners. While elaborating the issue, the appellant in his RTI application has stated that actually there are eight categories of pensioners. In the said context, the appellant has sought the following information:
1. Whether EPFO agrees with the classification of pensioners (8 numbers) given by the appellant in his RTI application.5
2. Provide the information with regard to the classification in different categories of employees/pensioners existing at present.
File no.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/653567 The Appellant has referred to the calculation methodology practiced by EPFO for calculation of Monthly Pension under Wage Ceiling and Higher Wages (Actual Salary). Appellant in his RTI application has given calculation of pension under two scenarios as under:
Pensionable service in wage ceiling Rs.6500 : 18 years Pensionable service in wage ceiling Rs.15000 : 03 years Total pensionable service: 21 years Weightage years : 02 Pensionable service in wage ceiling Rs.6501 : 18 years Pensionable service in wage ceiling Rs.15001 : 03 years Total pensionable service: 21 years Weightage years : 02 In the above context, the appellant has sought the following information:
1. Whether the calculation method adopted by the appellant in case No.1 given in the RTI application is in accordance with the practice of payment of monthly pension by EPFO.
2. Whether the calculation provided by the appellant in case No. 1 given in RTI application is correct or not.
3. Whether the Calculation method adopted by the appellant in case No.2 given in the RTI application is in accordance with the practice of payment of monthly pension by EPFO.
4. Whether the calculation provided by the appellant in case No. 2 given in RTI application is correct or not.
5. If the calculation method and resultant calculation in the above mentioned cases is incorrect, provide correct calculation method and calculations.
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over phone Respondent: Shri Pratap Singh Rawat, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & CPIO, Regional Office, Noida, Shri Kartikey Singh, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & CPIO, Shri Vishal Aggarwal, CPIO, all heard over phone.6
Grounds for filing Second Appeals The CPIO has provided vague, misleading and evasive information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the replies of the CPIOs given in the above listed RTI applications. He submitted that the methodology adopted by the respondent organisation for calculating his pension arrears and the pensionable service is not proper as they are interpreting the EPF Scheme in a wrong manner.
For File No. 646004, he submitted that a copy of the relevant rule for calculating monthly pension was not supplied to him.
The CPIO, Shri Pratap Singh submitted that all the available information has been already supplied to the appellant from time to time. He brought it to the notice of the Commission that the appellant in all his RTI applications has raised issues regarding the method of calculating his pension arrears and his pensionable service. All his RTI applications have been properly replied to and the appellant in the form of seeking information is actually challenging the EPF Scheme on the basis of his own interpretations and understanding, which cannot be done through the medium of the RTI Act. He further stated that in most of the RTI applications, the appellant wants the answer in a YES/NO form which also does not get covered under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. He also stated that they can only provide information based on the statute and anything beyond the legislation cannot be provided or adopted.
Shri Kartikey Singh, the CPIO, Regional Office, Bhikaji Cama Place submitted that appropriate replies were given to the appellant in all the RTI applications received by them and no additional/new information can be supplied to the appellant.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and after hearing the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the appellant in all his above mentioned RTI applications has raised certain hypothetical situations and wants the CPIO to consider each hypothetical situation to calculate his pension as per the said hypothetical variables posed by him and provide the possible solutions. It 7 seems that the appellant has some grievance about the method that was adopted for calculating his pension arrears and his pensionable service and hence has filed multiple RTI applications revolving around the same issue. The Commission notes that in every reply given by the CPIO, the appellant has been suitably guided so that he may access the available information himself. He has been also informed that if he has any grievance related to his pension calculation or otherwise, he may utilise EPFO's online grievance redressal portal (epfigms.gov.in) so that his concerns may be directly addressed by the concerned field office which has granted his pension. However, rather than doing so, the appellant has filed multiple RTI applications with the respondent organisation. During the hearing, among other submissions, the appellant submitted that the respondent organisation is not following the EPF Scheme in a proper way due to which he has suffered some financial loss in the form of less pensionable service being counted and less pension arrears paid to him. On this point, the Commission concurs with the order passed in Appeal no. CIC/WB/A/2009/000087 dated 16.02.2009 in the matter of Rajiv Gupta vs. Central Information Commission quoted by the CPIO in his written submissions. The relevant para is extracted below:
"...It was also explained that what he has asked for are questions of interpretation on enforceability of the law which clearly is not a question that can be answered by the CPIO, in any manner other than that ensconced in the Act itself,..."
Having perused the above said RTI applications and the nature of the information sought therein, it is clear the even though the information sought in all the cases is not same but all the RTI applications cover the same issue regarding the methodology of calculating his pension arrears and the pensionable service. All these instances of filing multiple RTI applications with the same public authority on similar issues negates his very purpose of filing the RTI applications. Even if he has a genuine reason for filing the multiple RTI applications and has a justified grievance, the fact remains that the manner adopted by him shows otherwise. In other words, even if the appellant was having a reasonable cause for filing these RTI applications according to him, the fact remains that the means adopted by the appellant speaks volumes of his ignorance of the spirit of the RTI Act. As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI applicants to not transgress the spirit of RTI Act by clogging 8 the functioning of public authorities with such repetitive, cumbersome and implausible RTI applications, moreso when the CPIO and the FAA have provided complete point wise information which was available with them.
It will not be out of place to quote verbatim the observation made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West- B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015].The relevant paras are extracted below:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' A more lucid rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matter by referring to the matter of ShailSahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'...In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still.' 'This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.' The aforesaid dicta particularly resonates with the said set of cases as the Respondent office is a vital part of the Department of Defence Production engaged in the production of warfare equipments in the area of land, sea and air systems. If the resources of this office are diverted into addressing the umpteen RTI Applications and First Appeals of the Appellant alone, it will lead to a situation of colossal wastage of its valuable manpower and infrastructure.' All this makes it clear that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his right to Information as being absolute and unconditional and is 9 rather resorting to misuse of this Act to settle his personal grievance. The appellant should know that the RTI Act is a means to promote public interest and should not to be used as an instrument to harass the public authority and sort out his personal grievances for which other fora exist. His multiple RTI applications have a grave impact on the functioning of the respondent organization, the EPFO, and if this is allowed, the public authority cannot focus on their core duties and their entire time will be devoted to such repeated/multiple RTI questions. This is undoubtedly misuse and it has to be checked. He cannot use the RTI route to satisfy his personal grievance, by flooding the public authority with numerous RTIs on the same or similar issues.
Decision:
In view of the foregoing, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIOs in all the RTI applications listed above. However in File No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/646004, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of the relevant page of the Manual of Accounting Procedure of EPS 95, part III as mentioned by the First Appellate Authority in his order dated 17.07.2-19, free of cost to the appellant within 05 days after the receipt of this order.
The Commission also finds it appropriate to caution the appellant to refrain from filing repeated and similar RTI applications as it leads to harassment of the public authority as well as wastes the time and resources of the concerned departments and the Commission. In case any such repeated second appeals or complaints are filed before the Commission on the similar issue, the same shall be dismissed in limine. He is advised to make judicious use of the cherished statute of the RTI Act in future.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) 10 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 11