Central Information Commission
Mr.Vijay Pal Yadav vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 25 November, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000889/10160
Appeal No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000889
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Complainant : Mr. Vijay Pal Yadav
Workshop Instructor
Vaish Technical Institute
Behind Railway Station, Rohtak,
Haryana.
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
RPFC-II Employee's Provident Fund Organisation Sub-Regional Office, Ganga Palace Complex, Subhash Road, Rohtak - 124001, Haryana.
RTI application filed on : 27/10/2009 PIO replied : Not replied First appeal filed on : Not appealed Complaint filed on : 18/01/2010 Complaint received on : 18/01/2010 Hearing notice sent on : 21/10/2010 Hearing held on : 25/11/2010 Information Sought:
1) Year-wise details of amount deposited in the Complaint's EPF A/c from the date of his appointment (10/08/1990) to till 27/10/2009 by the institute.
2) Year-wise details of interest earned on the deposited amount.
3) Year-wise details of amount deposited in employee share, employer share and family pension of the Complainant accounts.
4) Status of the EPF A/c now.
5) Reason for not sending EPF amount by the institute and not implementing the pension scheme, EPF act in the institute.
Reply of the PIO:
Not replied Ground of the First Appeal:
Not appealed.
Ground of the Complaint:
Non-receipt of proper information from the PIO within the stipulated time under RTI Act.
Submission received from the PIO:
(After the Complaint notice sent on 21/10/2010) The PIO & RPFC-II vide his letter dated 10/09/2010 informed the Commission that as the information desired by the Complainant was personal in nature and was exempted under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. To confirm that the Complainant was asked to get his application signed by his employer. In the meantime the Complainant filed an appeal on 03/12/2009 and finally the information was supplied to him on 13/01/2010. The reply was again handed over to the Complainant on 01/09/2010 after the letter of the Commission was received.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a perusal of the papers it appears that the complete information has been provided to the Complainant. However, from the submissions of the Respondent it is apparent that there has been some confusion about establishing identity of the Complainant. The PIO had stated that if the information was disclosed to somebody else it would attract the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Hence the PIO had sought confirmation about the identity of the Complainant. The PIO has admitted that if the information was being sought by the individual for his details Section 8(1)(j) would not apply. The information appears to have been given and the delay has been caused because of delay in establishing the identity of the Complainant.
Decision:
The Complaint is disposed.
The information has been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 25 November 200 (For any further correspondence in this matter, please quote the file number mentioned above.) (GJ)