PIO served a show cause for non-compliance of RTI order of FAA
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (CMPF) seeking information regarding payment of Provident Fund (PF) and pension to his mother. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the PF claim of his mother was received but as per compromised petition, she is not entitled for any share. The First appellate authority (FAA) directed the PIO to send query wise reply to the information seeker, however, the PIO failed to comply with the directions of the FAA.
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the claim of appellant’s father is to be settled as per compromised decree as per Court’s order. The Court had decreed that the total amount is to be distributed among two sons and a daughter of the deceased and the appellant’s mother is not entitled as per decree of the court. The PIO also stated that the claim has been settled and the share of the appellant (one of the son of the deceased) has been released but the share of the second son and daughter of deceased is withheld due to non-receipt of refund claim from the colliery side.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that the PIO has only replied to the appellant about the CMPF dues but has failed to provide information regarding the pension claim of appellant’s mother, despite the directions of the FAA. The Commission directed the PIO to provide complete information to the appellant particularly on the status of pension claim of appellant’s mother. Under section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show-cause notice to the PIO stating that he had failed to comply with the directions of the FAA and caused a delay of more than 100 days in providing information to the appellant.
Citation: Mr. Mithun Sarkar v. Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002117
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/970
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission