Amount credited in EPF account of employees – it is one’s personal information - however, names of employees and dates from which their PF contributions are being deposited can be disclosed
22 Jul, 2013Information sought:
RTI application dated 12/10/2011
1- How many accounts employer having account no. RJ/JOD/0010320 has opened; provide a list with their account numbers.
2- How much amount/contribution the employer has deposited during the period 2005-06 to 2010-2011, provide details of amount deposited in the account of each account holder.
3- How many accounts the employer has closed during the period 2005-06 to 2010-2011 and how many employees have withdrawn their money, provide complete details with list.
RTI application dated 21/10/2011
1- How many accounts employer having account no. RJ/JOD/0010302 has opened; provide a list with their account numbers.
2- How much amount the employer has deposited during the period 2005-06 to 2010-2011, provide details of amount deposited in the account of each account holder.
3- How many accounts the employer has closed during the period 2005-06 to 2010-2011 and how many employees have withdrawn their money, provide complete details with list.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 28/05/2013:
The appellant stated that he had requested for a list of employees and the amount deposited in various PF accounts of the employees by the employer (RJ/JOD/0010320) during the period 2005-06 to 2010-11 but the details have not been provided. The ACPIO stated that the information is held by them in fiduciary capacity and hence exemption has been claimed under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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; of the RTI Act. He added that this is in line with Commission’s decision in file no. CIC/SG/A/2011/000751, dated 17/06/2011. The appellant argued that the Commission vide its decision in file No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000148 dated 12/05/2012 had allowed the disclosure of the list of employees covered under the EPF and he is pressing for the list to be furnished. The ACPIO pleaded that the CPIO could not be present due to some emergent reasons and he may be given an opportunity to make written submissions on the issue of disclosure of list of employees covered under the EPF. The appellant stated that a copy of the written submissions should also be made available to him so that he has an opportunity to put his views before the Commission.
Interim Decision Notice dated 28/05/2013:
After hearing both the parties it is decided to grant adjournment and invite written submissions from the CPIO detailing his stand on the issue at hand. The written submissions to the Commission as aforesaid should be forwarded by FAX (011-26101592) latest by 17/6/2013 and a copy endorsed to the appellant.
The hearing is adjourned for 01/07/2013 at 03.30 PM.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 01/07/2013:
The ACPIO contended that the CPIO of the EPF department who had appeared before the Commission in appeal no. CIC/SG/A/2011/00148 dated 12/05/2011 did not claim exemption under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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; of the RTI Act and hence the disclosure was allowed. The appellant stated that in the instant matter he is only pressing for the names of the workers covered by the establishment under the EPF scheme and not for any information relating to their contributions/balances, name(s) of nominee(s) etc. which is held under fiduciary relationship and that Section 10 of the RTI Act provides for disclosure of information after severing those portions which are exempt. He further argued that it is well known that private establishments generally avoid paying PF dues, particularly of daily wage earners/migrant labourers and if the EPF authorities are directed to display the names of the workers covered under the EPF scheme, such malpractices can be minimized; thus larger public demands disclosure of the names.
Decision notice:
The two RTI applications are seeking similar information and the issue involved is also the same both on the question of law and facts. Therefore, both the appeals are being clubbed together and disposed of by a common order. It is seen that a coordinate bench of the Commission in appeal no. CIC/SG/A/2010/001386 (Harendra Singh V/s PIO & RPFC-II, EPFO Jaipur) decided on 06/07/2010 has held as under:-
“The PIO has provided most of the information but has withheld the details of the amount to the credit of the various employees and details of their contribution on the grounds that this information is exempt under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The Commission accepts the plea that the details of the amounts in the individual account may be covered under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, the Commission directs the PIO to provide the names of the employees and the dates from which their PF contributions are being deposited. The information about the amount of contribution and the amount in the credit of the individual employees may be severed as per Section-10 of the RTI Act.” The ratio of the above said order is squarely applicable to the matter at hand. Hence, the names of the workers covered under the EPF scheme by the establishments should be provided by the CPIO to the appellant, free of cost, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Sattanand Narayan Purohit v. EPFO in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/000846 + 000847/2872