Very Important Information for EPS 95 Pensioners | CIC - Order dt. 20.11.2019 - Parveen Kohli vs EPFO Shimla

As you all know, I had filed a 2nd Appeal before the Central Information Commission against EPFO, Shimla. I am sharing a copy of the orders issued by Ld. CIC. Since after final arguments, Point nos 5 & 6 of my application had been treated as Third Party Information, I have (today) obtained written consent from Mr. RC Gupta personally (as under) and the same will be sent to EPFO Shimla tomorrow, on his behalf. Now, there is no escape except to provide sought information in r/o Point nos 5 & 6 of my application.

Subject: No objection for disclosing information sought by Mr. Parveen Kohli
Please refer to the decision no. CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/654180/02198 dated 20.11.2019 in the matter of Parveen Kohli vs RPFC, EPFO, Shimla.
I have learnt that Mr. Parveen Kohli, a resident of Gurgaon had sought vide his RTI application no. EPFOG/R/2019/62432 dt. 4.8.2019 the following information from your office which was relating to undersigned:
Point no. 5: Copies of the option forms/letters in r/o Sh. RC Gupta of HPTDC (PPO NO. HPSML00026850) as submitted to EPFO Shimla

(a) Under Para 11(3) of the EPS1995 Scheme and
(b) Under Para 26(6) of the EPF1952 Scheme

Point no. 6 :Copies of the approval, if accorded by EPFO Shimla in r/o Sh. RC Gupta of HPTDC (PPO NO. HPSML00026850)
(a) Under Para 11(3) of the EPS1995 Scheme and
(b) Under Para 26(6) of the EPF1952 Scheme

In view of above referred orders of Hon’ble Central Information Commission, I do hereby permit your office to provide the aforesaid information in r/o Point Nos. 5 & 6 to Mr. Parveen Kohli as I have no objection to the same.
Thanks
Sd/-
R.C .GUPTA
SHIMLA

Praveen Kohali Sir also shared with you the written arguments submitted by him during the hearing before Ld. CIC on 20.11.2019 as under:
Before Mrs. Vanaja N. Sarna, Hon’ble Central Information Commissioner
Written arguments of Appellant in CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/654180 on 20.11.2019
Esteemed Ma’am,
Respectfully submitted:
Information sought by me is mainly concerning Provident Fund and Pension Fund relating to EPFO, Regional Office, Shimla. In my appeal before the FAA, besides point wise submissions, I had also brought to his notice, the following:

• a) CPIO has unlawfully refused to provide me the sought information by treating the same as third party informationb) The information sought by me has larger public interest which fully justifies its disclosure as it impacts the fate of lakhs of pensioners/ senior citizens and is NOT third party information.
• c) CPIO has not indicated the Section under which the information has been denied. However, he has specified that this has been denied being third party information.
• d) Since the sought information is NOT third party information as this relates to PF options, CPIO has not complied with any of the actions required while treating any information as third party as per the provisions contained in Section 11 of the RTI Act but has erroneously refused to provide the same in a casual manner illegally.
• e) CPIO has also defied the clear directive of EPFO HQ dt. 30.5.2017 (as was also mentioned in my application) which had been issued in compliance of decision of the Ld. CIC in CIC/BS/A/2015/002064 dt. 22.3.2017.
• f) Reply of the CPIO is in violation of several decisions (e.g. CIC/SM/A/2011/000166 dt 13.12.2011) of the Ld. CIC on the subject wherein it has repeatedly decided that the information relating to PF is neither personal nor third party information and that is why, EPFO HQ has issued the afore mentioned directive for strict compliance.

But, the FAA rejected all of my lawful submissions and refused to provide the information by treating the same as third party information.
Point no. 1:
WRONG INFORMATION by FAA - On 16.10.2019, FAA in his order has informed that pension of 71 persons have been revised and such information in r/o (a) & (b) of my application was not available in his office.
Whereas:

• Ø As per CPIO’s letter dt. 5.2.2019, pension of 253 persons had been revised (which included 237 from HPTDC)
• Ø Zonal Office, EPFO, Chandigarh vide letter dt. 28.8.2019 informed that pension of 337 persons have been revised by EPFO Shimla
• Ø EPFO HQ vide letter dt. 20.9.2019 informed that pension of 333 persons have been revised by EPFO Shimla.

So, the part information in r/o Point No. 1 provided by FAA on 16/17.9.2019 is INCORRECT & Misleading.
However, information in r/o Point No. 1 (a) & (b) has not been provided despite the fact that it is very much available with the public authority as such information is regularly sent by EPFO Zonal Office to EPFO HQ every FRIDAY since October/November 2019 after collecting from Regional Offices (in this case EPFO Shimla). Earlier, such information used to be sent by Regional Offices every month w.e.f. 21.6.2017 onwards till September/October 2019.

Point Nos 2 to 6:
CPIO & FAA treated this as THIRD PARTY information.
It is submitted that:

• 1. One of my friends Mr. Prahlad Singh of Bhiwani vide RTI application no. EPFOG/R/2019/67088 dt. 29.10.2019 had also sought similar information in r/o SIX persons from CPIO and vide letter dt. 19.11.2019, he has been informed that the concerned persons (including Mr. RC Gupta for which I had sought same information) have not been granted permission under Para 26(6) but the same information had been illegally denied to me by treating the same as third party information.
• 2. Information sought is concerning Provident Fund and Pension Fund mainly relating to HP Tourism Dev. Corp. (HPTDC) as managed by EPFO, Shimla
• 3. As per the proviso in Section 8(j), the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person
• 4. The information is required for the pension revision of lakhs of pensioners and as such has relationship to a larger public interest, so its disclosure certainly outweighs the harm to the protected interests, if any. However, in this case there is no such harm to any individual or organization.
• 5. Information sought is mainly the correspondence exchanged between two public authorities in r/o Provident Fund & Pension Fund and as such cannot be treated as third party information
• 6. No monitory or personal information of any person has been sought in my application e.g. Provident Fund amount or Pension Fund amount or their contact addresses or their contact numbers or Date of Birth or their Aadhaar numbers or their PAN numbers or their Voter ID numbers or their Bank Account details or Old Pension Amount or Revised Pension Amount etc.
• 7. CPIO & FAA both denied the information by treating it as third party information but didn’t specify as to under which Section of the RTI Act, the same has been denied
• 8. Since the FAA & CPIO know it very well that the sought information is not third party information, they both have not even initiated the well defined procedure required to be followed in case of third party information.
• 9. FAA has not informed me regarding the option of 2nd appeal against his decision available with me and tried to mislead me by mentioning in his order that “MATTER CLOSED”
• 10. Attention of your honour is invited towards following orders of Central Information Commission wherein it has been clarified that the information concerning Provident Fund/ Pension Fund cannot be treated as third party information:

Ø CIC/BS/A/2015/002064 dt. 22.03.2017
Ø CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/314655 dt. 01.05.2017
Ø CIC/SM/A/2011/000166 dt. 13.12.2011
In view of above submissions, it is very humbly prayed before your honour that in the larger public interest, CPIO may kindly be directed to provide me the complete information point wise and duly certified within a short specified time bound period (in view of old age of all the beneficiaries/ pensioners).
Thanks & regards