CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/DS/A/2010/000114/SG/8286
Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2010/000114/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Amar Nath
H.N. 33159. Street no. I
Pratap Nagar, Bhatinda.
Respondent : Mr. Saurabh Swami
Central Public Information Officer &
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organization
Ministry of Labour, Government of India
Sub-Regional Office, Nidhi Bhavan,
Urban Estate, Phase I, Bhatinda-151001.
RTI application filed on : 14/07/2009 PIO replied : 18/09/2009 First appeal filed on : 28/09/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 27/10/2009 Second Appeal received on : 02/12/2009 S. No Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. Whereabouts of Cheque no. 216854 The cheque had been received back from the Bank
dated 27/05/2009. with the remarks “A/c No. wrong.” Copy of the same
was enclosed.
2. Month wise details of Rs.11738 Copy of the month wise details was enclosed.
submitted by school.
3. Action taken on the Appellant’s No. application dated 05/06/2009 has been received
application dated 05/06/2009 and the by the Office.
details of officers who were
responsible for the same.
4. Copy of the reply given on letter no. Copy of letter no.1238 in reference to the Office
8303 dated 09/04/2009. letter dated 09/04/2009 was enclosed.
5. Amount of time that would be taken The claim shall be settled within 30 days after receipt
to finalize the Appellant’s claim. of the complete application duly attested and signed
by the member.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO with respect to Query no. 3 and the information
provided was not attested by the PIO.
Page 1 of 2
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA observed that no attestation was necessary since the information provided bore the signature
of the PIO. The PIO was further ordered to provide the complete information with respect to query no.3
within 7 days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the FAA’s order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Swami, CPIO & Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner;
The PIO shows that he had asked for additional fee and after the payment of the additional fees
he has provided the information to the appellant, hence there is delay in providing the information. He
also shows that the order of the FAA which the appellant has attached with the second appeal relates to
another RTI Application.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
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
28 June 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND)
Page 2 of 2