Central Information Commission
Om Prakash Verma vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 19 July, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, B-Wing, August KrantiBhawan, BhikajiCama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/BS/A/2016/001831/EPFOG
Om PrakashVermav. PIO, EPFO, Dehradun.
RTI : 25.02.2016
FAO : Nil
Second Appeal : 27.06.2016
Hearing : 18.07.2017
Appellant : Present
Public Authority : Mr. Vijay Kumar, PF Comm.
Decided On : 19.07.2017 (Show-Cause)
INTERIM ORDER
FACTS:
1. It is case of blatant breach of several provisions of RTI Act. Shri Om PrakashVerma, a retired officer sought photocopies of circulars ANRC/RB no.867-880/2012/NTDRT/KN-Kullu/10797 dated 26.11.2013, Pension/3/2/ 2006/bera, 10/201488 and 2203 dated 13.12.20111 and 23.10.2012 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment in New Delhi; status of the complaint made by the appellant in his application (CPO no. DDN/2233) dated 02.01.2016 regarding family pension plan to Mr Prakash Sharma; number of years of service completed by Mr Rohitash Kumar Sharma (Bank A/C- 01190006265) in SBI, S- 1, Ranipur Haridwar) and the rate at which the family pension plan was issued to him; number of years of service completed by Shri. Kalika Prasad Upadhyay (PPO no.8779, Bank A/C no.10173215856, in SBI, S-1, Ranipur Haridwar) for which an amount of Rs. 22161/- was deposited under the family pension plan and reason for incrementing his pension per year by Rs. 175; reasons for not furnishing expenditure under family pension plan to the appellant (PPO no. DDN/2233) and furnish reasons for not issuing the appellant increments on his pension plan. The CPIO replied on 28.03.2016 stating that photocopies require a submission of Rs. 2 as fees; did not furnish information under points 3 and 4 claiming exemption under S. 8 (1) (j) and 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. FAA did not CIC/BS/A/2016/001831/EPFOG Page 1 consider the appeal petition. Being dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission.
Decision:
2. The appellant, who served the Department for 34 years, complained that he was not given weightage/increment though his juniors were granted increment; he was not even given the reasons for such non-increment after two years of submitting the claim. He complained that Rs. 401 was deducted from his account on 03.05.2017.The CPIO M Ashok Kumar demanded Rs. 2 per page of three circulars that he sought through RTI application. He claimed that he is entitled to 12% interest on the arrears and wanted the copy of calculation sheet based on which his pension-payment is made.
3. The officer stated that he was originally entitled to Rs. 596 and it was revised to Rs. 1400 since 1.09.2014. However, he agreed that the Rs. 401 was deducted from the appellant's account but it was a technical error and to correct the mistakesall arrears amounting to Rs. 4,576 was paid to him on 30.06.2017.
4. First Violation: The senior citizens problem could not have been solved without his RTI application. It is disgraceful for the respondent authority to not respond toits senior officer's grievance representations for two years and rather deduct Rs. 401 from his account without giving him reasons for such deduction. He only came to know that it was technical defect of the system after persistent efforts through RTI Act. The Commission considers this as serious violation of RTI Act and no gratitude towards an employee, aged 78 years, and disrespect to officer, who served the Department for 34 years.
5. Second Violation: The Commission holds this as an act of irresponsibility not to provide pension related information. First of all the public authority has a duty to inform voluntarily the reasons for decision which affect the interests of an employee under section 4(1)(d), which says:
Provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
Reducing pension amount or deducting Rs 401 from pension affects seriously a person who lives on pension, who should have been informed. He CIC/BS/A/2016/001831/EPFOG Page 2 was compelled to file several representations and then RTI application, as he was not informed.
This Commission has held in previous second appeals that pension related information needs to be considered as the information concerning life or liberty:
Any grievance regarding these issues should also be treated as 'right to life' under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the public authorities shall do all the needful to address the issue within 48 hours Proviso to Section 7 (1) of RTI Act says:
Provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.
6. Third Violation: Section 19(5) says:
In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, who denied the request.
This provision also was violated by the CPIO.
7. Fourth Violation: There are several orders from Delhi High Court and other High Courts to the effect in which the CPIO is under an obligation to explain how the provisions of exceptions under Section 8 or 9 will apply to their case and mentioning of the number of provision was not just enough. This CPIO and his assistants might have never tried to read the RTI Act and judicial explanations on it.
8. Fifth Violation: As an employer the public authority is duty-bound to respond to grievance requests and provide redressal, which it breached. The circulars based on which his pension amount was altered should have been given as a part of its moral or legal duty and also as per section 4 of RTI Act, which also was breached.
CIC/BS/A/2016/001831/EPFOG Page 3
9. Sixth Violation: In the process, the CPIO has violated another important provision of RTI Act, i.e., Section 7(6), which says:
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1) of Section 7.
10. Then the public authority meticulously tried to implement one rule, i.e., to demand Rs 2 per page, without informing him the number of pages. And that happens after 6 months. It is unfortunate that the CPIO demanded Rs. 2 per page for the circulars sought by the appellant and there was a delay of six months in furnishing the documents. The CPIO never applied his mind to the fact that the pension related information was concerning life or liberty and should have been provided within 48 hours. It was not even given one month, but was given after six months.
11. The officer deputed by CPIO for the hearing was unprepared and was unable to answer the questions of the Commission. He along with his assistant searched papers for more than ten minutes but found nothing about the amount of fee sought for giving copies of three circulars. Finally, the office submitted that the information was furnished on 26.08.2016 after delay of six months and they did not know whether copying cost was collected or not.
12. On the other hand, the appellant, having hearing defect was finding it difficult to hear the officers and the Commission. A young man from NIC who was operating the video studio has rendered required assistance by briefing the proceedings to him. Because of the NIC person's assistance, the old man could explain his problem. It is interesting to see that the appellant has spread his papers on his table and was picking up required document to narrate the harassment from his former employer, while two officers were always searching the paper from the file and could find none. The officers including the CPIO were irresponsible, non-responsive, inhuman, thankless and highly inefficient. All these qualities of the officers resulted in serious harassment of the appellant. These middle-aged employees should have understood that they too retire and step into the shoes of appellant to face the harassment. None CIC/BS/A/2016/001831/EPFOG Page 4 thought about the difficulties of a retired person. How does he survive with dignity and self-respect, if a substantial amount is deducted from his pension? Why should he not know the reasons for not giving him due increment of the pension? The public authority, who is supposed to provide relief for the providence to the employees in their retired life, should be ashamed of such denials and violations of the law. Is this good governance? It is not even the governance.
13. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide complete information, point-wise along with certified copies of correspondence and file notings, free of cost, and hand it over to the appellant against receipt, under intimation to the Commission, before 18.8.2017. The Commission requires the Public Authority to explain how it would prevent such inhuman reductions of pensions in their office.
14. The Commission directs Mr. Ashish Kumar, RPFC-II and CPIO(on date of filing RTI) to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for all the violations of legal provisions mentioned above and also directs the CPIO to explain why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him, before 18.08.2017.
15. Considering this as a fit case for compensation, the Commission directs the respondent authority to explain why it should not be directed to compensate the appellant, aged 78 years for causing mental and physical harassment because of delay and denial of information, before 18.08.2017. The Commission would proceed ex parte, in the absence of parties and response to this notice. It is posted for compliance and penalty hearing on 18.8.2017 at 2.30 pm. SD/-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
CIC/BS/A/2016/001831/EPFOG Page 5
(Dinesh Kumar)
Deputy Registrar
Copy of decision given to the parties free of cost.
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, EPFO, RO-Uttarakhand, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Vyomprasth Kanwali, GMS Road, Dehradun-248001, UK.
2. Shri Om Prakash Verma, Sri Nath Nagar West, Gali No. 3, Near Saint Mary School, Railway Road, Jwalapur, Dist-Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249407.
3. Mr. Ashish Kumar, RPFC-II and CPIO (on date of filing RTI) EPFO, RO-Uttarakhand, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Vyomprasth Kanwali, GMS Road, Dehradun-248001, UK.
CIC/BS/A/2016/001831/EPFOG Page 6