Central Information Commission
Jagadishwar Narukula vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 30 June, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/619456.
Shri. Jagadishwar Narukula. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Employees Provident Fund Organisation.
Date of Hearing : 24.06.2025
Date of Decision : 24.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.03.2024
PIO replied on : 02.04.2024
First Appeal filed on : 03.04.2024
First Appellate Order on : 17.04.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 09.05.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.03.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"It has come to my attention that my wife Kandi Mounika is currently employed at Capgemini and she is misrepresenting and misleading the Honble Court by suppressing certain employment related facts, I kindly request the following information
1. EPF account numbers associated with Kandi Mounika employment.
2. The names of the organizations or employers depositing contributions.
3. The date of the first and last credit made to each of the PF accounts."
The CPIO, vide letter dated 02.04.2024 replied as under:-
"Please refer to your RTI Application dated 03/03/2024 received to this office on 04/03/2024 vide registration number EPFOG/R/E/24/03386. In this connection, it is humbly stated that the information sought by you in your RTI application pertains to another subscriber/member(Third Party) and the information of the subscribers/members is held by EPFO in fiduciary capacity and cannot be disclosed to a third person except under certain circumstances, such as when serving larger public interest etc. Further, you have not produced the consent letter from Third Party as per section 11 (1) of RTI Act 2005.
Although, a letter was sent by this office to obtain consent from Smt Narukula Mounika alias kumari Kandi Mounika under Section 11(1) of the Right To Information Act 2005. However, Smt Narukula Mounika alias kumari Kandi Page 1 Mounika vide her email dated 27/03/2024 has explicitly refused to let his PF details be shared with anyone.
In view of above, as consent has not been received from Smt Narukula Mounika alias kumari Kandi Mounika, hence the information sought by you cannot be disclosed in light of section 8(1) (e) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. Accordingly your RTI Application is disposed off."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.04.2024. The FAA, RPFC-I, Pune-2 vide order dated 17.04.2024 replied as under:-
"Hence, in response to your RTI Appeal application (registration no EPFOG/A/E/24/00900 Dated 03/04/2024), it is concluded that reply provided by CPIO on 02/04/2024 is in order and within prescribed time limit and the provisions of section 8(1) (e) and 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 have been appropriately applied."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri S.P. Shrimali, APFC The CPIO vide written submission dated 16.6.2025 stated that an RTI application filed by Shri Jagadishwar Narukula dated 03-03-2024 was received to this office online on 04-03-2024. In the application, he requested specific details pertaining to Smt. Narukula Mounika alias kum. Kandi Mounika and provided Aadhar No. 4463 2207 0862, in support of his request. He stated that he is the husband of Smt. Narukula Mounika alias kum. Kandi Mounika who had filed maintenance suit against him in the Family Court with case No. D.V.C. 87 of 2023 and M.C. no 13/2023 wherein he alleged that his wife had not disclosed his employment related facts.
It is pertinent to mention that the information of the subscribers/members is held by EPFO in fiduciary capacity and cannot be disclosed to a third person except under certain circumstances, such as when serving larger public interest etc. Therefore, since the information sought by Shri Jagadishwar Narukula pertained to a third party i.e Smt. Narukula Mounika alias kum. Kandi Mounika and this office reached out to Smt. Narukula Mounika alias kum. Kandi Mounika for her consent.
Further, on 27-03-2024, an email was received from Smt. Narukula Mounika alias kum. Kandi Mounika explicitly denying permission to disclose/share any of her details with Jagadishwar Narukula. In light of this refusal, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) withheld the requested information under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The same was communicated to Shri Jagadishwar Narukula through a reply to his RTI application dated 03-03-2024.
Page 2 Decision:
Upon the perusal of the case records & submissions, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has been provided to the Appellant. No further action lies.
The Appeal stands disposed off.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)