CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000147/SG/9177
Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000147/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Gurkirat Singh Dhillon
H.No. 4123, Phase II, Urban Estate
Patiala-147002
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
RPF Commissioner
Employees' Provident Fund Organization
Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India
Regional Office: Chandigarh Region
S.E.O 4-7 Sec-17 D, Chandigarh.
RTI application filed on : 12/05/2009
PIO replied : 06/07/2009
First appeal filed on : 10/07/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 30/07/2009
Second Appeal received on : 29/08/2009
Information Sought
The Appellant sought information regarding -
1. please provide a certified copy of Form 10 filed by the Indian Express Group of newspapers under the
“Employees Provident Funds Scheme” 1952 [Para 36 (2) (a) & (b)]” regarding “return of members
leaving service during the month.” For the following months
a) August 2000
b) September 2000
c) October 2000
d) November 2000
e) December 2000
f) January 2001
g) February 2001
2. The above data (Form 10) may please be provided for the offices under the Indian Express Group of
Newspapers located in Mohali (Punjab), Chandigarh (UT) & Panchkula (Haryana) for the months as
specified in the above mentioned point.
3. Indian Postal order no. 79E 018322, worth Rs.10/-as application fees attached.
4. you are requested to transfer the RTI under Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005, to the CPIO who has the
information within your organization,incase the requested information is not available
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
The PIO stated that Form 10 submitted by the establishments is kept in fiduciary capacity by the Regional PF
Commissioner. Therefore the same can’t be supplied as per provisions of Sec 8(i) (e) of the RTI Act 2005.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA in his order reiterated the PIO’s statement and further stated that the Appellant can seek information
from the PIO related to his own EPF account.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfied with the information provided by the PIO as well as the FAA’s order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Gurkirat Singh Dhillon on video conference from NIC-Patiala (Punjab) Studio;
Respondent: Absent;
The appellant states that form-10 is a statutory requirement which has to be filed by all employers with
the PF Authorities and this form only gives information about the names and address of employees, father’s
name, date of resigning and reason for resigning if any who have left service in a particular month. The PIO
has refused to give the information on the ground that the information is held by the public authority is a
fiduciary capacity.
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure ‘information available to a person in his fiduciary
relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of
such information;’
The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone
else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter’s benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or
law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or
role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important characteristic of such a relationship is
that the information must be given by the holder of information who must have a choice,- as when a litigant
goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An
equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of
information gives the information for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All
relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information
provided in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to
have been given in a fiduciary relationship.
The form -10 given by employer to the PF Department is in fulfillment of a statutory obligation and this does
not qualify as information given in a fiduciary relationship. In view of this the Commission rejects the
contention of the PIO that the information is exempt under Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act.
The appellant states that the First Appellate Authority did not call him for a hearing and in his order he did not
taken into the account any of the submissions of the appellant. It true this is a completely illegal and unjust
practice adopted by the FAA. The FAA is directed to send his explanation to the Information Commission as
to why the Commission should not recommend disciplinary action against him for dereliction of duty. The
FAA will send his explanation to the Commission before 30 September 2010.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information to the appellant before 25 September
2010.
The First Appellate Authority is directed to send his explanation as directed above to
the Commission before 30 September 2010.
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
01 September 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(VN)
CC:
To,
First Appellate Authority through PIO & Regional PF Commissioner;