Central Information Commission
Akhtar Beg vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 25 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा /Second Appeal No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/135311
CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/135444
Akhtar Beg ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 25/02/2026
Date of Decision : 25/02/2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Ashutosh Chaturvedi
Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:
RTI application filed on 03/09/2024
CPIO replied on 04/10/2024
First appeal filed on 10/10/2024
FAA's order dated 21/10/2024
Second Appeal dated 01/11/2024 and 04/11/2024
(Both the cases arise out of the same RTI application, therefore they have
been clubbed for the purpose of adjudication)
Information sought:
The appellant has filed RTI application dated 03/09/2024 seeking the following information:
"1. म आपसे पूछना चाहता ँ िक थापना उ री िद ी नगर िनगम 'PF' कोड DL/***12 के खलाफ कमचारी भिव िनिध '7A' के तहत कायवाही कर रही थी ा वह कायवाही पूरी हो गई है।Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/135444 Page 1 of 4
2. उ री िद ी नगर िनगम पर 8 जनवरी 2011 से 7A की कायवाही चल रही थी। म जानना चाहता ँ िक ा थापना के कमचा रयों को 8 जनवरी 2011 से पैसा PF िवभाग ने िदलवा िदया है। और अगर नहीं िदलवाया है तो कारण बताय।
3. थापना के िकतने कमचा रयों को जनवरी 2011 से पैसा िमला व लगभग सब कमचा रयों को िमलाकर िकतना करोड़ पये उ री नगर िनगम से वसूला गया।
4. आपने कमचा रयों को केवल उनका मूल पैसा ही िदलवाया था थापना से ाज व जुमाना वसूलकर कमचा रयों को िदया गया बताने का क कर।
5. थापना DL/***12 की कायवाही कौन आयु कर रहे थे व PF इं े र का नाम व फोन नं. भी दे जो इसकी कायवाही कर रहे थे।"
2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant dated 04/10/2024 stated as under:
"Reply to 1. हाँ ।
Reply to 2. 7A आदे श से स त अ जानकारी कमचारी भिव िनिध संगठन के वेबसाइट के िन िल खत िलंक से ा कर-
https://eproceedings.epfindia.gov.in/epfo/court/judgments_report.php# Reply to 3. सभी यो कमचा रयों को िमला (कमचा रयों की सं ा उपल नहीं है) / वसूली रािश से संब त आँ कड़ा उपल नहीं है।
Reply to 4. पॉइं ट न. 4 के संदभ म कमचारी भिव िनिध अिधिनयम की धारा 14बी / 7 ू के अंतगत कायवाही की गई है।
Reply to 5. थापना म कमचा रयों की सं ा 1000 से अिधक होने के कारण 7A की कायवाही े ीय भिव िनिध आयु -I कर रहे थे ।"
3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal with the first Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 21/10/2024 stated as under:
"त ों को ान म रखते ए, यह अवलोकन िकया गया है िक ी अखतर बेग ारा दायर अपील का िनपटारा िकया जाता है ोंिक सीपीआईओ ारा पहले ही अपीलकता को पूरी जानकारी दी जा चुकी है।"
4. Challenging the decision of the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant filed the Instant Second Appeal on 01/11/2024 and 04/11/2024 Written Submission of the Respondent dated 19/02/2026 is taken on record Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/135444 Page 2 of 4
5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Aparna Gill, CPIO/APFC participated in the hearing in person The Appellant has not availed the opportunity to participate in the hearing to contest his case despite due notice of hearing. The Respondent reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that Section 7A proceedings against the establishment (North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Code DL/44612) for the period 08.01.2011 to 31.03.2019 have been fully completed, with recoveries of Rs. 92.46 crores (up to May 2015) and Rs. 23.96 crores (June 2015 to March 2019) effected, while recovery for 2016-2019 stands stayed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 02.04.2024 in W.P.(C) 4759/2024, proceedings under Sections 14B and 7Q were conducted up to 31.10.2022 but the matter is now sub-judice before the CGIT. All information sought has been furnished as per available records.
DECISION In the light of the facts of the case, the material on record and the submission made during hearing, the Commission observes that that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act from available official records, has been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
It is further directed to the Respondent to send the copy of the Written Submission dated 19.02.2026 to the Appellant free of cost via speed post and email within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and accordingly send a compliance report to this effect to the commission within 7 days thereafter.
No further intervention of the commission is warranted. The Appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशुतोष चतुवदी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/ Date: 25.02.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/135444 Page 3 of 4 Ram Singh Meena (राम िसंह मीना) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011- 26715467 Address of the Parties:
1. CPIO EPFO Regional Office Delhi North, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Community Center, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi 110052
2. Akhtar Beg Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/135444 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)