CIC: Taking an empathetic view in the matter, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submission free of cost and also to facilitate a meeting with the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time to ensure due assistance in resolution
12 Jun, 2023Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.09.2021 seeking the following information:
“1. Whether I am eligible for minimum pension of Rs. 1000/- as provided from Sept, 2014?
2. My present original pension amount?
3. The calculation details of remitted pension amount as per required PPO?
4. The reason for the amount collected Rs. 45868/- without providing any increase in pension amount?
5. The reason for non-intimation of the effect of increase in any tax (considering the non-increase in pension amount) to the remitted of Rs. 45868/-
6. The procedure for getting refunded the remitted amount of Rs. 45686/- in the light of non-increase in pension amount?
7. The reason for non-restoration of any portion of pension after made recovery 23 years?”
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 29.09.2021 stating as under:
“1. Yes.
2. Original Monthly member Pension: Rs. 590/-
3. Past service benefit tram date of joining to 15.11.1995: Rs. 171/- Monthly member's pension from 16.11.1995 to 21.08.1998 = Pensionable salary x Pensionable service]/70 = Rs.6I69 x 1735 days/ 70= Rs.419/- i.e., Original Monthly Member Pension = 171 + 419 = Rs.590/
4. The amount of Rs. 45,868/- which was recovered towards the amount of contribution payable over statutory wage of ceiling of Rs.5000)- to the revised pensionable salary of Rs.6169/-
5. Pension revision process will be initiated only after receipt of remittance towards contribution on higher wages.
6. As per the existing Scheme provisions framed under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, there is no provision to pay the amount recovered to revise the pensionable salary on higher wages.
7. As per this office records, your pension sanctioned under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 has been revised on higher wages. As the matter of pension on higher wages is subjudice, restoration of commutation of pension has not yet effected for such cases.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.10.2021. FAA’s order dated 25.11.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Shubham Ashok Kashyap, RPFC & CPIO present through videoconference.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO’s reply. He further contested the issue regarding non-revision of his pension at higher wages and in turn non-effect of restoration of commutation of his pension.
The CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 28.04.2023, relevant extracts of which are reproduced herein below in verbatim –
“…Appellant Sri Balachandran T had sought seven queries/information seeking on the matter of reducing his pension amount from Rs.794/- to Rs.764/- , after remitting an amount of Rs.45,8681- towards the pension fund, for the purpose of revision of pension on higher wages and non-effect of restoration of commutation of pension, which were observed as in the nature of grievances and queries.
xxx
“…9. lt is humbly submitted that the appellant has not yet approached the Assistant P F Commissioner (Pension), EPFO, Kozhikode to solve his grievance.
A. As per office records, monthly member pension has been sanctioned vide pension payment order No.KRKKD0009102, under the Employees' Pension Scheme,l995 for the contribution payable over the statutory wage ceiling ot Rs.xxx On reversion, of pension rule order No.Co-ord/3(6)2011/Amendment Scheme/13637 dated 28.08.2014, pensionable salary was increased to Rs.6l69l and monthly member pension order has been revised and sanctioned vide pension payment order No.KRKKD0006283 1.
B. As per the records and in compliance to the EPFO, Head Office directions issued vide order No. Co-ord/3(6)201 I /Amendment Scheme/l 3637 dated 2E.08.201 4 by enhancing statutory wage ceiling from existing Rs.6500/ to Rs, 15000/-,fixing minimum pension to Rs xxx/-( Annexure -R 5), the pension was revised based on the new wages, pension amount was reduced from Rs.794l- to Rs.764l- due to proportionate increase of amounts calculated for commutation and return of capital.
xxx
11. In view of the facts noted as above, it is stated that calculation of pension and revision of pension in respect of the appellant Sri. Balachandran T has been attended as ,per the existing rules and provisions as existing under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 and issued by the Head office the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation at New Delhi, which is in order. Further as advised by the First Appellate Authority, the appellant has not approached the Assistant PF Commissioner (Pension), [PhoneNo.0495-2361350]. EPFO, Kozhikode, for redressal of his grievance…”
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se as much as it is about redressal of Appellant’s grievance regarding revision of pension on higher wages and non-effect of restoration of commutation of pension and seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.
From the standpoint of RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO given earlier and now are in spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
For better understating of the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
“35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing………A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”
As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
“6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.”
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
“20. …While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information “which is held by or under the control of any public authority”, the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority….”
However, by taking an empathetic view in the matter, the CPIO is directed firstly to share a copy of his latest written submission free of cost with the Appellant and also to facilitate a meeting with the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time to ensure due assistance in resolution of the issue. The said direction should be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect should be sent to the Commission by the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Balachandran T v. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, CIC/EPFOG/A/2022/109549; 03.05.2023