Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Veer Pratap Singh Chandel 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/2024/644960



Veer Pratap Singh Chandel                              ....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                  29/04/2024
CPIO replied on                           21/05/2024
First appeal filed on                     13/06/2024
FAA's order dated                         19/06/2024
Second Appeal dated                       09/10/2024

Information sought

:

The appellant has filed RTI application dated 29/04/2024 seeking the following information:

"1. Please provide copy of any Guidelines/ Standard Operating Procedure/ Process notes issued by the EPFO on Voluntarily Provident Fund and Contribution to Voluntarily Provident Fund.

2. Please provide a copy of the circular/Notice/ Notification/ Instructions/ Office order related to the Voluntarily Provident Fund and contribution to the Voluntarily Provident Fund.

3. Please provide a copy of the Circular/Notice/Notification/Instruction/office order for the Rate of Admin Charges (A/C 02) on Wages which has been considered for the contribution for the Voluntarily Provident Fund."

2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant dated 21/05/2024 stated as under:

"Information sought is vague in nature. However, it is informed that the all the circulars, Standard Operating Procedure, Manuals and Notifications are already present in the public domain on official website of EPFO. Official Link- https://www.epfindia.gov.in/"

3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal with the first Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 19/06/2024 stated as under:

"Now, considering the facts on record, CPIO (WSU) is hereby directed to provide a detailed revised reply to the appellant for the original RTI application as requested by the appellant in the first appeal. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. In case the appellant is not satisfied with the order of the First Appellate Authority, further appeal may be filed before the Central Information Commissioner, CIC Bhawan, Baba, Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi - 110017."

The Directions of the FAA Order was complied with by the CPIO as per our records

4. Challenging the decision of the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant filed the Instant Second Appeal on 09/10/2024.

Written Submission of the Respondent dated 19/02/2026 is taken on record.

5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Savarna Kumar, RPFC-II, 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 upon verification, it was found that no Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/644960 Page 2 of 4 separate Circular/Notification/Instruction/Office Order/SOP exists exclusively governing Voluntary Provident Fund (VPF). It is informed that VPF is not a distinct statutory scheme instead it is merely a voluntary higher contribution by an employee governed by the existing statutory framework under the EPF Scheme, 1952. Since no separate circulars, guidelines, SOPs, or office orders exclusively for VPF are available on record, the same could not be furnished.

DECISION In the light of the facts of the case, the material on record and the submission made by the parties, 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 this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be sent 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) Ram Singh Meena (राम िसंह मीना) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011- 26715467 Address of the Parties:

1. CPIO, EPFO, Head Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14 Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066

2. Veer Pratap Singh Chandel Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/644960 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)