Posted On by &filed under Central Information Commission, Judgements.

Central Information Commission
Mr.Avinash D Thakur vs Employees Provident Fund … on 17 March, 2011
                             Club Building (Near Post Office)
                           Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                  Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                            Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003375/11527
                                                                    Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003375
Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Avinash D.Thakur,
628/3,Shiavaji Road,
Pul Mithai,
Delhi 110006.

Respondent                            :       Mr. P. K. Tiwari
                                              CPIO & RPFC (II),
                                              Employees Provident Fund Organization
                                              341, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
                                              Kher Wadi, Bandra (East),

RTI application filed on              :       17/08/2010
PIO replied                           :       23/09/2010
First appeal filed on                 :       17/10/2010
Reply of CPIO                                 26/10/2010
First Appellate Authority order       :       15/11/2010
Second Appeal received on             :       30/11/2010

Information Sought:

1. Details of the reason behind no registration of the promotion given under Physically Handicapped

2. Details of the movement of the letters dated 12th to 27th july,2010.

3. Details of the quota category under which K.B.Joshi falls

4. meaning of rule position and can a person fall under both categories seniority or examination quota.

5. Copies of all certificates of staff falling under ph category

6. No. of promotions given to people with less than 40% disability.

7. details of ph employees and whether 3% quota filled with recruitement/promotions.etc.

8. copy of recovery report and the time taken for filling of up the vacancy.

9. details for not giving the original sheet of DPC minutes and the details of its validity.

10. details of the staff who prepared the panel of promotions.

Reply of the PIO:

Provided the list and relevant information.

First Appeal:

No information has been provided by the department.

Order of the FAA:

Although the department has provided the valid information still the appellant has refused to acknowledge
it. And hence ask for revised information for questions 1 and 4 and warned the appellant not to file
multiple queries on the same RTI.

Reply of CPIO;

The staff has refused to part with their certificates. The consent has also been called off from RO/SRO in
r/o physically handicapped category staff working in their offices with the reply awaited.

Ground of the Second Appeal:

No reply given demand better information.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant : Mr Avinash D.Thakur on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio;
Respondent : Mr. P. K. Tiwari, CPIO & RPFC (II) on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio;

The PIO has not given information about the certificates of handicapped of 36 employees though
the Additional fee has been taken for these. The PIO has erred later on in refusing to give this information
claiming that it is third party and third parties are objecting. Section-11 of the RTI Act is a procedural
requirement but the PIO has to make a determination whether the information is exempt under the
provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. No such determination has been made and the certificate based
on which certain people are given certain advantages in a job must certainly be provided to the Appellant
since these are not exempted in the RTI Act. Infact as per the provisions of Section-4(1)(b) (xiii) these
should be suo-moto declared by the Public Authority.


The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the information of those who are treated in the
handicapped category to the Appellant before 30 March 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 RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
17 March 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.180 seconds.