CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/001092/9945Adjunct
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/001092
Complainant : Mr Ranjan Kumar Pal
House No. 86/92B
Rishaldar Park
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
Respondent : 1) Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav
CPIO & Regional PF Commissioner II
EPFO, Regional Office Delhi North
Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Plot No 28
Wazirpur Industrial Area
Delhi-110052
2) CPIO & Regional PF Commissioner II
(Complaince), EPFO, Ministry of Labour
Govt. of India, Head Office
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14
Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi-110066
Events Chronologically:
• RTI Application - 06/01/2010
• No information provided by the PIO
• Complaint - 03/08/2010
• Notice - 06/09/2010
- Information to be provided
to the Complainant before - 29/09/2010
- Copy of information &
PIO's explanation to be sent
to the Commission before - 09/10/2010
• Response of the PIO
to the Notice - 27/09/2010
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
Mr Ranjan Kumar Pal had filed a RTI application with the CPIO, EPFO, Head Office, on
06/01/2010. However on not having received the information within the mandated time, the Complainant
filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. On this basis, the Commission
issued a notice to the CPIO, EPFO, Head Office (Exemption), on 06/09/2010 with a direction to provide
the information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the information
within the mandated time.
The Commission received a letter dated 27/09/2010 from the CPIO & RPFC II, Delhi North,
Page 1 of 3
wherein it was stated that the said RTI Application was received in their office on 23/02/2010; thereafter,
information was provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 06/05/2010, but the letter came back to the
office undelivered on 17/05/2010. It was further submitted that the reply dated 06/05/2010 was being
provided again to the Complainant subsequent to the Commission’s notice. On perusal of the documents,
it is observed that the reply dated 06/05/2010 provided to the Complainant appears to be inappropriate and
incomplete; the CPIO should have provided a categorical reply to the Query No. 2 & 3 of the Application.
The Commission further observes that the Respondent No. 2 has failed to transfer the said RTI
Application to the concerned authority within the time period stipulated under the RTI Act.
Decision dated October 28, 2010:
The Complaint was allowed.
“In view of the aforesaid the CPIO & RPFC II, North, is hereby directed to provide complete and
correct information to the Complainant with regard to the RTI Application dated 06/01/2010 to the
Complainant before 19/11/2010. Proof of dispatch of information should be sent to the Commission
before 24/11/2010.
It is apparent that the Respondent No. 2 is guilty of not transferring the said RTI Application
within 5 days from its receipt as per section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. It appears that the all the CPIO’s
actions attract the penal provisions and disciplinary action under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act.
Therefore, CPIO & RPFC II, North, and the CPIO & RPFC II, Compliance, Head Office, is
hereby directed to present themselves before the Commission on 16/12/2010 at 10:30 am along with their
written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action be
recommended against them under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further, the CPIOs may serve
this notice to such person(s) who are responsible for this delay in providing the information, and direct
them to be present before the Commission on the aforesaid scheduled date and time. The
CPIO should also bring proof of seeking assistance from other person(s), if any. The CPIO & RPFC II,
North, is directed to bring along a copy of the reply sent to the Complainant along with its dispatch
receipts; and the CPIO & RPFC II, Compliance, Head Office is directed to bring along a copy of the
transfer letter and its dispatch receipts.”
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on December 16, 2010:
The following were present:
Respondent: Dr. A. K. Dubey, the then CPIO & RPFC- I, Mr. Saurabh Jagati, CPIO & RPFC- II and
Mr. S. P. Puri, AO on behalf of CPIO, EPFO (Delhi: North).
The Respondents stated that the RTI application dated 06/01/2010 was received at PID, EPFO
(Head Office) on 12/01/2010. The application was transferred to the Compliance Division, EPFO (Head
Office) on 18/01/2010, which was received by the latter on 04/02/2010. The Compliance Division, EPFO
(Head Office) forwarded the RTI application to the Exemption Division on 11/02/2010. Thereafter, the
Exemption Division forwarded the RTI application to EPFO (Delhi: North) on 18/02/2010, which was
received by the latter on 23/02/2010.
Information was initially sent to the Complainant vide letter dated 06/05/2010. The Respondents
submitted that the information sought was not readily available and involved interpretation of the
provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 which did not qualify as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI
Act. To provide specific point- wise information, the CPIO, EPFO (Delhi: North) was required to consult
his higher authorities and upon receiving consultation and getting guidelines from the authorities, a reply
was provided to the Complainant. Further to the Commission’s order dated 28/10/2010, detailed
information, as discussed with the higher authorities was provided to the Complainant on 10/12/2010. The
Commission noted that its order of 28/10/2010 was required to be complied before 19/11/2010. However,
Mr. S. P. Puri stated that the order was received only on 09/12/2010 and consequently information was
provided on 10/12/2010 and that about 15- 20 days was taken to receive any communication by post.
Page 2 of 3
In the instant case, the Commission observed that the RTI application was filed on 06/01/2010 and an
initial reply was provided only on 06/05/2010. Given the facts of the case, the Commission is unable to
pinpoint responsibility of an officer for the delay in providing the information to the Complainant in a
timely manner. It appears that the system in place at the office of the EPFO is not well- structured to
provide prompt response to RTI applications ultimately defeating the very purpose of the RTI Act. It
appears that the public authority does not take its obligations under the RTI Act seriously and
consequently, there was a considerable delay in providing the information.
The Commission notes with great concern that the Public Authority appears to be incapable of meeting
the requirements of the RTI Act. The Commission directs the Central PF Commissioner under its powers
under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act to ensure that the Public Authority is geared to deliver the information
within 30 days as mandated under the RTI Act. The inordinate delay appears to be due to the languorous
method in which work is done in the public authority. Right to Information is a fundamental right of
citizens and by such method of sending the RTI application on huge wild-goose-chase with no concern for
time it would not deliver the information to the citizens promised to him under the RTI Act.
Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It
may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and
prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of
helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of
undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation for
harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in
curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook
The Commission considers this as a fit case for award of compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI
Act since it is not possible to pinpoint blame on any individual officer. The Commission therefore awards
the compensation of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the Appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him by
the delay in getting the information because of the extremely slow method of working in the Public
Authority.
Adjunct Decision;
Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, CPIO & Regional PF Commissioner II is directed to
ensure that a cheque of Rs.5000/- compensation is sent to the Appellant before 30 January
2011.
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 the RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
16 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(JA)
CC: To,
Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
EPFO
Ministry of Labour and Employment
14, Bhikaji Kama Place,
New Delhi – 110066
Page 3 of 3