Central Information Commission
Manu Agrawal vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 14 January, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/636466/02608
File no.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/636466
In the matter of:
Manu Agrawal
... Appellant
VS
The CPIO & Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi- 110066
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 11/09/2018 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 22/10/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 15/11/2018 Second Appeal dated : 05/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 14/01/2020 Date of Decision : 14/01/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Shri J.K Agarwal (Representative) , present in person Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and CPIO, present in person Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information in regard to contribution to VPF:
1. Maximum amount of monthly VPF contribution for an employee.
2. Can the appellant stop the VPF contribution by requesting his employer after starting a monthly contribution to VPF.1
3. Can the appellant change the amount of his monthly VPF contribution? If yes, how frequently it can be done.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant's representative submitted that an inordinately delayed reply was received through e-mail on 09.01.2020 and that too irrelevant and not as per the information sought.
The CPIO submitted that the then concerned CPIO for Gurgaon (I) was Shri Deepak Narwal, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Shri Rajeev Nayan for Gurgaon, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (II). He further submitted that unfortunately the reply could not be given on time and it was not deliberate. He further submitted that the first appeal was disposed of but not to the satisfaction of the appellant. He further clarified that the information sought was a general query and the same could have been given on time by the Nodal Officer. He tendered his unconditional apology for the lapse. He further submitted that an apt reply was given on 09.01.2020. The appellant contended that he had sought information relating to VPF (Voluntary Provident Fund) contribution. The CPIO then clarified that no such term like VPF exists and people generally derive the same connotation from clause 29(2) of EPF Scheme 1952. The CPIO was told to give a categorical point wise reply specifying that no such term exists and as such no such information is available on their record. The CPIO further said that except for point no. 1 the rest of the information sought are relating to drawing inferences. He was advised to give a suitable reply as per the RTI Act.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record it is noted that a categorical reply in strict adherence to the information sought was not given. The CPIO should give a categorical point wise reply as discussed above. Decision:
The then CPIOs Shri Deepak Narwal, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Shri Rajeev Nayan, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner are issued a strict warning to be careful with regard to the timelines prescribed under the Act and refrain from providing delayed replies which may attract penal action u/s 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act.2
File no.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/636466 The CPIO Shri Satya Prakash, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner shall provide a revised point wise reply as discussed above to the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order and shall also serve a copy of this order to the then CPIOs.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3