The matter was tossed between EPFO, Barrackpore and EPFO, Bandra, and both stating that the PF account details are not maintained by either of them - CIC: The PIO, EPFO Bandra cannot transfer the RTI application any further; Provide a categorical reply
The appellant sought information as to when he would get the revised pension on full salary basis, having PPO No. WBTL000069435, transition Id6586850662, as per Supreme Court Order issued in Oct, 2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The appellant stated in his second appeal that he was not satisfied with the reply provided by the CPIO.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that till date the desired information has not been provided to him. The CPIO in his written submissions has stated that since the matter was related to EPFO, Bandra, the RTI application was transferred to them on 03.07.2019 for taking an appropriate action and also an adequate response was given to the appellant on 13.06.2019.
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that an apt reply was given to the appellant by EPFO, Barrackpore as the query is strictly not covered u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act. However, considering the importance of the appellant’s grievance regarding pension and his advanced age, the Commission is taking up the matter while following the principles of natural justice.
It is noted that the instant matter has been tossed between EPFO, Barrackpore and EPFO, Bandra, and both the organisations had stated that the PF account details are not maintained by either of them. The Commission opines that the EPFO, Barrackpore was right in transferring the RTI application to EPFO, Bandra as the PF Account of the appellant is under their jurisdiction where all the relevant records /documents/returns in respect of the member as well as the establishment are maintained. On the other hand, EPFO, Barrackpore, is merely a disbursing office and hence they cannot take any action to revise the pension on higher wages, if at all the appellant is entitled. Under such circumstances, the EPFO Bandra is directed to consider the matter on immediate basis and provide a categorical reply to the appellant with regard to his eligibility to revised pension and while considering his case, a reference may be drawn to the pension case of Parveen Kohli as has been mentioned by the appellant in his second appeal.
In view of the above, the CPIO, EPFO Bandra is directed to consider the RTI application as well as the grievance of the appellant and provide a categorical reply to the appellant regarding his eligibility to revised pension. He should note that he cannot transfer the RTI application any further, however, he can seek assistance from any other public authority u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act and nonaction on his part will be viewed seriously by the Commission under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act. The CPIO, Barrackpore, is directed to serve a copy of this order to the CPIO, EPFO Bandra to initiate necessary action by his organisation. This direction should be complied with within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of this order and a final reply to the appellant should be provided by EPFO, Bandra within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Citation: Kalyan Kumar Ganguly v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation in Decision no.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/100784/03209, Date of Decision: 30/03/2020