CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00598
Dated, the 19th November, 2008.
Appellant : Smt. Rukuwa Devi
Respondents : Coal Mines Provident Fund Office
This matter came up for hearing on 17.11.2008 in pursuance of the
Commission’s hearing notice dated 11.08.2008. Appellant was absent, while the
respondents were represented by Shri Raghunandan Rao, Joint Commissioner &
AA and Shri U. Panda, Regional Commissioner, CMPF-III, Asansol.
2. The present appeal of the appellant originates in her RTI-application dated
09.05.2007, which raised a single query, which read as follows:-
“Please provide the provident fund on annual basis from 1956 to the date
of payment of provident fund of my late husband Shri Jagannath Bhuian,
who was reinstated in the year 1956 at Equitable Coal Company of
Charanpur Colliery and who had then taken voluntary retirement (VRS)
from Mithani Colliery.”
3. During the hearing, respondents submitted that the appellant’s husband
who was an employee of the respondents between 1956 and 1993, was paid on
30.03.1994 a sum of Rs.1,12,375/- as Contributory Provident Fund for the period
he was in the service of the public authority. Never during his lifetime did the
appellant’s husband raise any point about the Provident Fund settlement arrived
at between the public authority and him. Now, after over 14 years appellant’s
wife is raising the issue about the methodology adopted for arriving at the above-
mentioned Provident Fund figure.
5. It was mentioned by the respondents that, according to the records ⎯ and
they don’t have all the records the matter being so old ⎯ it is their surmise that
the amount due to the appellant ought to have been Rs.86,734.53. They hastened
to add that it was quite possible that this figure did not reflect the actual due to
the appellant’s husband as well as the amount paid to him which, it seems now,
was actually higher at Rs.1,12,375/-. However, in view of the fact that this
appellant had made an RTI-petition, they made a diligent search for all the
available information in order to compile an inventory of the receivables by the
appellant’s husband which yielded the figure 86,734.53. This figure is not
accurate as it represents only that information which was received from various
units of the company. Some units obviously did not respond. There is no useful
Page 1 of 2
purpose that would be served now by searching out records at different locations
based on nothing more than the surmise and assumptions which appellant seems
to be having in her mind about the receivables of her husband.
6. Respondents also mentioned that after the advent of the RTI Act certain
unscrupulous elements, using the names of the members of the families of
deceased employees of the public authority, are putting in RTI-applications for
reopening of Provident Fund matters which have been long-settled and in which
no dispute was ever raised between the date of settlement and the date of the
passing away of the relative of the petitioner. Such elements are fleecing the
petitioners kindling unreasonable hope of their receiving huge settlement
amounts from the Company. Respondents urged Commission to consider this
alleged misuse of RTI Act for corrupt purposes by middlemen and brokers.
7. Respondents’ submission was noted. They may, if they so consider, file a
complaint before the local police regarding the malpractice and criminal
activities of these persons.
8. As regard this appeal, I’m afraid it is not possible to agree with the
submissions of the appellant. There is strength in the respondents’ submission
that the PF matter of the appellant’s husband has been settled without any dispute
during the lifetime of the husband / employee. It is not possible now at this
distance of time to re-examine all records which went into determining the
Provident Fund receivables of her deceased husband.
9. Commission accepts the respondents’ submission that they have no
records to transmit to the appellant at this distance of time and that all evidence
proves that this matter stood fully settled in 1993-1994 and should not be
allowed to be reopened through an RTI-application. Considering the age of this
matter, searching for these records will lead to disproportionate diversion of the
respondents’ resources and thus will attract Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
10. The appeal lacks merit. The respondents’ submission is upheld. Appeal
closed.
11. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2