{"id":248062,"date":"2011-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-01-21T09:00:49","modified_gmt":"2017-01-21T03:30:49","slug":"mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.O P Kaushik vs Employees Provident Fund … on 28 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.O P Kaushik vs Employees Provident Fund … on 28 April, 2011<\/div>\n
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                        Club Building (Near Post Office)\n                      Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067\n                             Tel: +91-11-26161796\n\n                                            Decision No. CIC\/SG\/C\/2010\/1452\/11846Penalty\n                                                     Complaint No. CIC\/SG\/C\/2010\/001452\n\nComplainant                            :    Mr. O.P Kaushik\n                                            H.No. 922 (Ground Floor),\n                                            Housing Board Colony,\n                                            Sector-29, Faridabad-121007, Haryana\n\nRespondent                         :        Mr. Ram Rattan,\n                                            SSSA & Deemed PIO\n                                            Employees Provident Fund Organization,\n                                            Ministry of Labour & Employment,\n                                            Government of India\n                                            Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,\n                                            Behind Fire Station, Sector 15A\n                                            Faridabad, Haryana\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n
 arising from the Complaint:\n<\/p>\n
The Complainant had filed a RTI application dated 11\/06\/2010 with the Regional P.F.
\nCommissioner EPFO, Faridabad, Haryana asking for certain information. Since no reply was
\nreceived within the mandated time period of 30 days, the Complainant filed a Complaint under
\nSection 18<\/a> of the RTI Act with the Commission. On this basis, the Commission issued a notice
\ndirecting the Respondent on 06\/12\/2010 to provide information to the Complainant and further
\nsought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission received a letter dated 06\/01\/2011 from the Respondent wherein it has been
\nstated the RTI application of the Complainant dated 11\/06\/2010 was received in the
\nRespondent’s office on 05\/07\/2010 and was replied vide letters dated 23\/10\/2010 and
\n23\/11\/2010. It was further stated that the RTI application could not be replied as the diary
\nregister for the period 01\/08\/2005 to 31\/03\/2006 was not available in the office. It is also
\nsubmitted that the same could not be traced out by the Receipt and Dispatch Section and hence
\nthe delay in supplying information to the Complainant.\n<\/p>\n
On perusal of the records before the Commission it is found that the information provided by the
\nRespondent to the Complainant is not appropriate.\n<\/p>\n
Decision dated April 4, 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The Complaint was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
“In view of the aforesaid, the PIO is hereby directed to provide complete and specific
\ninformation as per the available record to the Complainant before 25\/04\/2011 with a copy
\nto the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                          Page 1 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n
 Furthermore, the issue before the Commission is of not providing the requisite information by
\nthe PIO within 30 days, as required by law.\n<\/p>\n
From the facts before the Commission, it appears that the Respondent have not provided the
\ncorrect and complete information within the mandated time and has failed to comply with the
\nprovisions of the RTI Act<\/a>. The delay and inaction on the Respondent’s part in providing the
\ninformation raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may be malafide.\n<\/p>\n
The PIO is hereby directed to present himself before this Commission on 28th April 2011 at
\n12.30 pm along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed
\nand disciplinary action recommended against him under Section 20<\/a> (1) and (2) of the RTI Act<\/a>
\nshould not be taken. Further, the PIO may serve this notice to any other official(s) who are
\nresponsible for this delay in providing the information and may direct them to be present before
\nthe Commission along with himself on the aforesaid scheduled date and time. The PIO shall also
\nbring proof of seeking assistance from other official(s), if any.”\n<\/p>\n
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on April 28, 2011:
\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Respondents: Mr. S. S. Arora, PIO & APFC and Mr. Ram Rattan, SSSA & Deemed PIO;\n<\/p>\n
        The Complainant had sought information in his RTI application dated 11\/06\/2010
\nregarding a letter sent by him on 22\/08\/2005 and the action taken on it. The Respondent stated
\nthat the RTI application dated 11\/06\/2010 was received on 05\/07\/2010. The information as
\navailable on record was provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 22\/10\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
The Respondents stated that the Dak Receipt Register for the period August 2005 was not
\ntraceable in the office. Sufficient efforts were made to trace the said register and ultimately, a
\nnon- traceable report regarding the Dak Receipt Register was submitted by Mr. Ram Rattan,
\nSSSA (Record Keeper) on 22\/10\/2010. As per the report, the said register was weeded out
\nduring May 2010 after the retention period of three years as prescribed in the Accounting
\nManual.\n<\/p>\n
The PIO Mr. Arora states that he has sought the assistance of Mr. Ram Rattan, Sr. Social
\nSecurity Assistant (SSSA) under Section-5(4) to provide the information. Mr. Ram Rattan did
\nnot provide the information and hence the delay. The Commission asked Mr. Ram Rattan to
\nexplain the cause for this delay. He states that he was trying to locate the records and could not
\nfind it. The information given to the Complainant is that the records are weeded out. It is
\nunthinkable that an official was looking for a records for over 100 days without realizing that it
\nhas been weeded out. The simple answer appears to be that there was carelessness and no
\nreasonable ahs been advanced for the delay.\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case, the RTI application was received by the PIO on 05\/07\/2010 and therefore
\ninformation should have been provided before 05\/08\/2010. However, the information as
\navailable on record that “the record was not available” has been provided on 22\/10\/2010 i.e.
\nafter a delay of 78 days. Some other information has been provided on other queries and there is
\nno explanation why at least this simple information has not been provided within 30 days.\n<\/p>\n
Section 20<\/a> (1) of the RTI Act<\/a> states, “Where the Central Information Commission or the State
\nInformation Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is
\nof the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information<\/p>\n
                                                                                            Page 2 of 4<\/span>
\n Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application
\nfor information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1)
\nof section 7<\/a> or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect,
\nincomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the
\nrequest or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of
\ntwo hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so
\nhowever, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as
\nthe case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is
\nimposed on him:\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the
\nCentral Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”
\nA plain reading of Section 20<\/a> reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission
\nmust impose penalty:\n<\/p>\n
1)     Refusal to receive an application for information.\n2)     Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7<\/a> -\n30     days.\n3)     Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect,\n<\/pre>\n
       incomplete or misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of
\n       the request\n<\/p>\n
4)     Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.\n<\/p>\n
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ‘ without reasonable cause’.\n<\/p>\n
Section 19<\/a> (5) of the RTI Act<\/a> has also stated that “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove
\nthat a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State
\nPublic Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under
\nsub-section (1) of section 7<\/a>, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees
\ntwo hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides
\nthat there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in
\nSection 20<\/a> (1) of the RTI Act<\/a> and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of
\nproving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO
\nas per Section 19(5)<\/a> of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Ram Rattan, SSSA & Deemed PIO has not been able to offer any reasonable explanation for
\nthe delay in providing the information. Since no reasonable cause has been advanced for the
\ndelay in providing the information the Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty
\nunder Section-20(1) of the RTI Act<\/a> at the rate of `250\/- per day of delay for 78 days on Mr. Ram
\nRattan, SSSA & Deemed PIO i.e. `250\/- X 78 days = `19,500\/- .\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
       As per the provisions of Section 20<\/a> (1) RTI Act<\/a> 2005, the Commission finds
\nthis a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Ram Rattan, SSSA & Deemed PIO. Since
\nthe delay in providing the correct information has been of 78 days, the
\nCommission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Ram Rattan `19,500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                             Page 3 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n
       The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO is directed to recover the
\namount of `19,500\/- from the salary of Mr. Ram Rattan and remit the same by a
\ndemand draft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer,
\nCAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
\nJoint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission,
\n2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066. The amount may be
\ndeducted at the rate of `4875\/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. Ram
\nRattan and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from June 2011. The total
\namount of `19,500\/- will be remitted by 10th of September, 2011.
\nThis decision is announced in open chamber.\n<\/p>\n
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6)<\/a> of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                         Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                               Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                                           April 28, 2011
\nCC:<\/p>\n
\n\nTo,\n\n1-       Central Provident Fund Commissioner,\n         EPFO\n         Ministry of Labour and Employment\n         14, Bhikaji Kama Place,\n         New Delhi - 110066\n\n2.       Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,\n         Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary\n         Central Information Commission,\n         2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,\n         New Delhi - 110066\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                          (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RJ)<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                   Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.O P Kaushik vs Employees Provident Fund … on 28 April, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/C\/2010\/1452\/11846Penalty Complaint No. CIC\/SG\/C\/2010\/001452 Complainant : Mr. O.P Kaushik H.No. 922 (Ground Floor), Housing Board Colony, Sector-29, Faridabad-121007, Haryana Respondent : […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-248062","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.O P Kaushik vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.O P Kaushik vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-21T03:30:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.O P Kaushik vs Employees Provident Fund … on 28 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-21T03:30:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1514,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.O P Kaushik vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-21T03:30:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.O P Kaushik vs Employees Provident Fund … on 28 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.O P Kaushik vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.O P Kaushik vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-21T03:30:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.O P Kaushik vs Employees Provident Fund … on 28 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-21T03:30:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011"},"wordCount":1514,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011","name":"Mr.O P Kaushik vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-21T03:30:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-o-p-kaushik-vs-employees-provident-fund-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.O P Kaushik vs Employees Provident Fund … on 28 April, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248062","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=248062"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248062\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248062"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248062"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248062"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}