Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Pravin Kumar A P vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 8 April, 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/2025/646321

Pravin Kumar A P                                       ....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                  VERSUS
                                   बनाम

CPIO,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
New Delhi                                          ... ितवादीगण /Respondents

Date of Hearing                   :   07/04/2026
Date of Decision                  :   07/04/2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                   Ashutosh Chaturvedi

Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:

RTI application filed on                  19/07/2024
CPIO replied on                           21/08/2024
First appeal filed on                     30/08/2024
FAA's order dated                         01/10/2025
Second Appeal dated                       06/10/2025

Information sought

:

The appellant has filed RTI application dated 19/07/2024 seeking the following information:
"...I was employed with C-DOT from 04-10-1999 till 10-07-2008. The EPF/EPS account for this period was maintained by the C-DOT PF Trust, with account number DSNHP/****/3870. I request you to kindly (1) Bearing link the said EPS to my UAN number ********7161.
(2) To update my service history 04-10-1999 till 10-07-2008 in the EPFO records for the benefit of Pension..."
Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2025/646321 Page 1 of 4

2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant dated 21/08/2024 stated as under:

"This is not an information. However, the applicant have to link EPS A/c No DS/NHP/****/3870 with this UAN-*********7161 via UMANG App using FAT as per new SOP vide office circular No WSU/Member ProfilePt1/E- 965649/2025-26/22 dated 30/07/2025."

3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant filed the First Appeal with the first Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 01/10/2025 stated as under:

"1. The appellant via his RTI application asked the CPIO about creation of UAN for the purpose of the linking of his PF account number DS/NHP/7706/3870.
2. The reply provided by the CPIO whereby the Public Authority stated that the applicant have to link EPS A/c No. DS/NHP/7706/3870 with this UAN 100279737161 via UMANG App using FAT as per new SOP vide office circular number WSU/Member ProfilePt1/E-966649/2025-26/22 dated 30.07.2025
3. However, the appellant preferred the appeal on the ground "Provided Incomplete, Misleading or False Information".

4. At the outset it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for noncompliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the RTI Act.

5. Primarily, seeing the contents of the RTI Application and Appeal, the appellant is grieved by not linking of his PF account number DS/NHP/7706/3870 to any UAN Number. Earlier responses of CPIO in which the Public Authority stated the process of UAN generation is underway, however the same was not generated as there were updation in SOPs whereby the member has given facilities of linking their unlinked PF account number via UMANG App using FAT. Further, the CPIO also stated the reference of the circular number vide which the basis of the reply provided to the appellant. As redressal of grievance, reasons for noncompliance, actions taken by the respondent authority all are subjects which are outside the purview of the RTI. However, seeing the sensitivity and urgency Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2025/646321 Page 2 of 4 of the matter the PAA is of the opinion that CPIO shall intervene and help the appellant in resolving the grievance. Further, Appellant is also advised to use the grievance portal if its complaint remains unresolved.

6. As there is no requirement of intervention is needed in the above stated matter and accordingly, the matter is disposed of."

4. Challenging the decision of the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant filed the Instant Second Appeal on 06/10/2025.

Written Submission of the Respondent dated 02/04/2026 is taken on record

5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shahi Shekhar APFC and Prashant Singh SSA, EPFO participated in the hearing in person.
The Appellant has not availed the opportunity to participate in the hearing despite due notice of hearing. The Respondent reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that all the information available on record has been provided to the Appellant. He further apprises the bench that grievance of the appellant has been duly resolved.
DECISION In the light of the above submissions, 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.
The Commission is of the view that the Right to Information Act, 2005 is a statute enacted to provide access to information held by public authorities and to promote transparency, and it is not a mechanism for grievance redressal. Grievance redressal, if any, can be pursued by the citizens before the appropriate forums established under the relevant statutes or rules.
No further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The Appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशु तोष चतु वदी) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) िदनां क/ Date: 07.04.2026 Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2025/646321 Page 3 of 4 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 Regional Office- Delhi West, EPFO Complex, Plot No 23, Sector No. 23, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075
2. Pravin Kumar A P Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2025/646321 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)