Mr.Naresh Kumar vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 18 May, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.Naresh Kumar vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 18 May, 2011
                            Club Building (Near Post Office)
                          Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                 Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                           Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000459/12431
                                                                   Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000459

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant : Mr. Naresh Kumar
Dist- Etak Mahasachiw,
Ganpati Plaza, Baas Road,
Dharhera, Distt- Rewari

Respondent : Public Information Officer & RPFC-II
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation
(Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India)
Head Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14-Bhikaiji Cama Place,
New Delhi –110 066

RTI application filed on : 29/09/2010
PIO replied : 18/11/2010
First appeal filed on : 03/12/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 18/01/2011
Second Appeal received on : 30/01/2011

Information sought by the appellant:
The appellant ask for the less amount of PF issued. Worked with Sushama sons from 01/09/2005 to
15/01/2009. The appellant also wants the Form 3A and 6A of the years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08
and 2008-09.

PIO Replied :

“List of distribution of the year 2007-08 is already issued and appellant can get forma 3A from the
organization. Form 6A contains financial data of various other subscribers, which cannot be disclosed
under RTI and it is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(J) of RTI Act.”.
According to the department, in the year 2007-08 last remaining was Rs. 3947/- and Rs. 1211 /- was
residue amount. The pension account was of Rs. 2453 /- and there was no contribution in year 2008-

09. According to department, the appellant left his job on dated 31-12-2008.

Grounds of the First Appeal:

Appellant is not satisfied.

Order of the FAA:

“PlO has provided the available information to the appellant. Hence no more information remains to be
furnished.. ”

Ground of the Second Appeal:

The appellant was not satisfied.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Naresh Kumar;

Respondent : Absent;

The PIO appears to have given the information to the Appellant. The Appellant appears to have a
grievance that he should get more money. This is not the matter which can be decided by the Information


The Appeal is disposed.

The information appears to have been provided.
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
18 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MC)

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *