CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi )

Transcription

1 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi ) Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) Central Information Commissioner CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/ Meena Bhatt v. PIO, EPFO Uttarakhand RTI : FAO : Second Appeal : Hearing : Appellant : Present Public Authority : Shri Kartikey Singh, RPFC-II Shri M.C. Pandey Decided On : FACTS: FINAL ORDER 1. Appellant filed RTI application seeking month-wise details of his PF contributions from May-2006 to February 2009 P.F. A/c No. UKHLD made by Sybex Computers System Pvt. Ltd., monthly contributions made by Tarai Majdoor and Gramin Utthan Samiti in name of Meena Bhatt (appellant), and PF contributions for appellant by Chaudhury Enterprises in April 2011,etc. CPIO provided information on and the same was upheld by the FAA on The Commission s order dated : 2. The appellant who was employed as Data Entry Operator in Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, stated that the month-wise information was not provided from the period She complained that the PF contributions were made from one account but credited in another account of one person named Mr. Bhuban Chander. She also alleged there are two accounts in one particular name and she was threatened to fill the withdrawal form and withdraw the account after she raised this issue. The University management is hand in glove with EPFO, therefore, she was removed from the University upon raising that grievance. 3. She submitted that she was jailed on false allegations, FIR was filed and she was restrained from entering the premises of the University. 4. The Commission believes there is an anti-rti atmosphere in the Department and registers this as complaint as the officer has not only come unprepared before the Commission, he deliberately refrained from answering the questions of the Commission after making the Commissioner repeat the set of questions for five times. CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/ Page 1

2 Decision : 5. The Commission directs the respondent authority to consider this as complaint and directs the respondent authority to provide action taken on the said complaint of the appellant. 6. The Commission directs Mr. Karthikeya Singh, CPIO and Mr. Mr. M.C. Pandey, Asst. Commissioner to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing complete information and obstructing the flow of information, before The Commission registers this as complaint and issues summons to Mr. Karthikeya Singh, CPIO and Mr. Mr. M.C. Pandey, Asst. Commissioner to be present before the Commission and produce complete files related to PF details of Ms. Meena Bhatt, on date to be fixed and intimated by the Deputy Registrar. 3. Shri Kartikey Singh, RPFC-II on filed a written explanation with reference to file nos. CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/119522; CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/119523; CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/119524; CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/ and CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/ It categorically explains: Accordingly, in order to comply with the aforesaid orders the undersigned had sent a letter dated to the appellant with request to submit her complaint along with documentary evidence, if any, to undersigned at earliest. The undersigned is, subsequently, in receipt of communication from the appellant, which was received by post in this office on It is intimated that the undersigned has conducted an investigating into the issues raised by the appellant in her aforecited communication as well as the issues raised during the hearing conducted by Hon ble CIC on The findings are us under: 1. The appellant has sought month-wise PF contribution & interest earned details in respect of three PF accounts for period as mentioned below: Period for which month-wise information is EPF Account Number sought UKHLD May 2006 to February 2009 UKHLD March 2009 to March 2011 UKHLD April 2011 to April It is submitted that the prior to introduction of EXR system (Electronic Challan cum Returns) by EPFO in financial year , the employers were required to deposit physical (paper) annual returns in Form-3A & Form-6A to EPFO. The annual return Form-3A was contribution card in respect of individual employee and the details of month-wise PF contribution deducted & deposited in respect of individual employee for a financial year was entered therein by the employer. The Form-6A was consolidated yearly contribution in respect of all the employees of the establishment. On basis of the Form-3A & Form-6A the month-wise contributions of each member were entered in CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/ Page 2

3 EPFO s accounting software so as to issue account statement of individual employees for a financial year. This account statement had details of total annual contribution received and interest credited for the year. Once the accounts statement has been issued the annual returns Form-3A & Form-6A become redundant and are disposed in accordance with the prescribed retention period. The retention period of these returns has been prescribed by EPFO s Manual of Accounting Procedure Part-I General (common to all three schemes), vide Annexure-A of the said manual. As per the said document the retention period of Form-3A is five years and that of Form-6A one year after the annual accounts of the establishment have been compiled. 3. Therefore, the month-wise details of PF contribution received in respect of individual PF accounts as indicated by Table above are not available with this office since the requisite Form-3A & Form-6A have not been retained in accordance with prescribed policy. This office only has the year-wise contribution received in respect of individual PF account of the appellant and the said information has been provided to the appellant vide the reply to her RTI application. 4. In order to obtain & provide month-wise details of the member, this office also deputed an Enforcement Officer (EO) vide office order dated , to visit the three ex-employers of the appellant and obtain month-wise details or copies of Form-3A/6A from them, if available. The EO has reported that he visited the contractors and the principle employer, M/s G.B. Pant Agriculture University, Pantnagar. The employer in respect of first contractor, M/s Sybex Computer Systems Pvt. Ltd., is not reported to be available locally, however, the principle employer was able to provide copies of consolidated annual return Form-6A for period , & in respect of the contractor. In respect of second contractor, M/s Tarai Majdoor & Gramin Utthan Samiti, also the above University/principle employer was able to provide copies of return Form-3A of the appellant for period & , however, in respect of M/s Chowdhary Enterprises no returns could be obtained from the contractor or the University, as the employer intimated that he has not retained the same. As noted from the copies of returns that this office was able to collect from the principle employer (as indicated above), the PF contribution in respect of the appellant has been correctly entered into EPFO s accounting software in accordance with the figures indicated by the employer/s. 5. Regarding the other issues raised by the appellant during the hearing held on before the Hon ble Central Information Commissioner, the investigation has revealed certain issues as delineated below: (a) The ex-employer of the appellant, M/s Sybex Computer System Pvt. Ltd. Had erroneously submitted a PF withdrawal claim in respect of the appellant s PF account UKHLD for another employee, Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Kandapa, and the said claim ws settled by this office on thus, the PF accumulation in respect of Ms. Meena Bhatt for period to was wrongly settled in favour of another employee due to wrong PF claim attestation and submission by the concerned employer, and an amount of Rs 2784/- was sent to the bank account of Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal. (b) However, when the matter came to light, this office wrote a letter dated to the said employer, with a copy of the letter marked to the appellant, stating that the employer has submitted a PF claim for PF CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/ Page 3

4 account number UKHLD in the name of Shri Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal which has been settled by this office, and now the employer had submitted another PF claim form for the same PF account in the name of Ms. Meena Bhatt. The employer was directed to explain why same PF number had been allotted by him to two different members. (c) The employer, M/s Sybex Computer Systems Pvt. Ltd. Submitted his reply to this office vide his letter received on , wherein he stated that the PF number UKHLD was indeed pertaining to Ms. Meena Bhatt, and the correct PF number of Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal UKHLD The employer also submitted annual returns Form-6A for the said period showing the details of contributions deducted and deposited in respect of Ms. Meena Bhatt in EPF account number UKHLD An examination of the subsequent file noting of the said matter has revealed that the above letter of the employer was processed by this office and it was noted in the office file that due to wrong claim submission by employer an amount of Rs. 2784/- has been settled in favour of Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal from EPF account number UKHLD (i.e. from EPF account number of Ms Meena Bhatt) whereas the said amount should have been settled from PF account number UKHLD (d) Therefore, this office transferred an amount of Rs 2784/0 from EPF account number of Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal UKHLD to EPF account number of Ms. Meena Bhatt UKHLD in and also credited interest on the said amount for the period to so that a total amount of Rs. 3843/- was credited into the EPF account of Ms. Meena Bhatt on Thus, the correct EPF account of Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal (UKHLD ) was closed by this office. (e) It is also submitted that in upon receipt of RTI application of the appellant, Ms. Meena Bhatt, it was found by the Accounts Section that at the time of calculation of interest on the transferred amount certain miscalculation had been made, and therefore, an additional interest amount of Rs. 1560/- was also credited into the appellant s PF account prior to providing the reply to the original RTI application. Same may kindly be seen in the enclosed copy off member s account ledger. (f) No such issues, as above, have been found in the other EPF accounts of the appellant maintained in this office. 6. It is also submitted that the excel sheet regarding month-wise PF deduction (or PF deposit, as it has not been made clear by the appellant in her ) of the appellant, sent by by the appellant to this office on (copy again received by post on ) was also examined. However, the undersigned CPIO has found two basic issues with the said excel sheet, which are that firstly, there appears to be certain misunderstanding on part of the appellant as to provisions of EPF Act and benefits provided to the eligible members, and secondly, the figures shown in the excel sheet do not match exactly with this office record. These matters are examined in detail below. CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/ Page 4

5 A. Mis-Understanding of Benefits provided In the excel sheet showing month-wise and year-wise PF deduction/deposit the appellant has labelled once column of month-wise figures as SUM OF EPF WORKER 12 and another column of month-wise figures SUM OF EPF EMPR The appellant has then totalled the above two columns for every month, and thereafter, totalled the month totals to reach yearly totals and subsequently labelled the final sum of yearly totals as the GRAND TOTAL. In absence of any other explanation provided, the undersigned CPIO has logically presumed that the appellant has designated her monthly PF deduction/deposit from her monthly salary at the rate of 12% as column one above and the second column pertains to the employer s monthly contribution to her EPF account at the rate of 13.61%. However, it is submitted that the appellant has thereafter mis-calculated by adding both columns and arriving at a total figure which she has presumed as her EPF account balance. This is so because as per the EPF Act, and the schemes framed thereunder, EPF is indeed deducted at rate of 12% of basic wages plus dearness allowance plus cash value of food concession, if any, and the employer provides matching contribution at the rate of 13.61%, however, there are three schemes that EPFO implements with above received monthly contribution, viz. Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (EPF Scheme), Employees Deposit-Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (EDLI Scheme) and Employees Pension Scheme (EPS Scheme). The contributions received from the employee and employer are credited in the said schemes as per below table: Employee s contribution Employer s contribution 12% 13.61% Entire credited into 12% in EPF scheme 3.76% credited into EPF scheme, 8.33% in EPS Scheme, 0.5% in EDLI scheme and rest into EPFO s administrative accounts as administrative charges for implementing the EPF & EDLI schemes Therefore, as may be noted above, only 15.67% (12% %) of contribution received (12% %) is credited towards the individual member s EPF account. The contribution received in EDLI & EPS schemes are credited towards a common financial pool and benefits are extended to the concerned members as per scheme eligibility. For instance, under EDLI Scheme, insurance benefit is given to member s family in instances of death of the member while in service, similarly, under the EPS scheme, the member and his family are eligible for receiving monthly pension if total contributory service is over 10 years and are eligible for Scheme Certificate or withdrawal benefit from the scheme (as per scheme prescribed table) if total; contributory service is less than above. Thus, as explained above, it would be erroneous to simply add the entire 12% employees contribution to the entire 13.61% employer s contribution to arrive at a sum figure and presume that to be the total EPF corpus for any member. The appellant in the excel sheet enclosed with her dated seems to have made above error in calculating her EPF corpus. CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/ Page 5

6 B. Mis-Match in figures provided by Appellant and those as per this office s records The yearly figures of EPF contribution made by the Appellant as per her dated and the figure as per this office s records are tabulated as below (kindly note only employee s share of contribution has been tabulated for ease of understanding): Year Employee s contribution as per Appellant s excel sheet (in Rs.) Employee s contribution as per this office records (in Rs.) Mis-match (in Rs.) * Total Mis-match Rs The contribution for received in respect of EPF account pertaining to M/s Chowdhary Enterprises (UKHLD ) * The contribution for received in respect of EPF account pertaining to M/s AURA Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. (UKHLD ) Thus, it may be noted that the figures of PF deduction/deposit as claimed by the appellant mostly do not match those as per this office s records. As submitted above, this office had deputed an official to try to obtain the copies of returns related to annual and monthly contribution deposited (Form-3A & Form-6A) from the ex-employers of the appellant and only a few returns were obtained. The comparison of figures obtained from said returns and the figures as mentioned by the appellant is tabulated below: Month & Year March paid in April 2009 Figures as per Form-3A of M/s Tarai Mahdoor & Gramin Utthan Samiti for (UKHLD Salary Employees share of contribution Figures as per the excel sheet attached with appellant s dt Salary Employee s share of contribution May June July CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/ Page 6

7 Month & Year March paid in April 2010 Figures as per Form-3A of M/s Tarai Mahdoor & Gramin Utthan Samiti for (UKHLD Salary Employees share of contribution May Figures as per the excel sheet attached with appellant s dt Salary Employee s share of contribution June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Feb paid in March 2011 Total: It may kindly be considered that the above figures pertaining to this office records have been entered in the EPFO accounting software on basis of employer attested returns, i.e. Form-3A & Form-6A, they are tallied against receipted payment challans, submitted by the concerned establishments, and at time of annual updating of the accounts of the concerned establishments there is a prescribed three-level verification/approval stage, hence, unless proven otherwise they are to be treated as authentic figures in terms of PF contribution received by the office. It is also intimated that EPFO has launched ECR (Electronic Challan cum Returns) since financial year , and in the new system the employer does not have to submit physical/paper returns in Form-3A & Form-6A to this office, but rather the monthly returns regarding PF deducted & deposited are entered into the EPFO software directly by the employer through his Log-in and password on the internet, the software generates the e-challan, and the employer makes payments against the said challan through internet banking mode. Thus, from financial year onwards, this office has computerised records of monthwise PF contribution deposited for EPF members. In case of the appellant it is submitted that the appellant had not requested for month-wise EPF details in respect of period after April 2012, however, as she has now mentioned her EPF details for period after April 2012 also, this office is attaching a copy of computerised accounts ledger of the member s EPF account pertaining to EPF account number UKHLD with this letter. CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/ Page 7

8 CONCLUSIONS OF ABOVE FINDINGS It is submitted that the undersigned CPIO has thoroughly investigated the matter and found that although due to wrong PF claim attestation by the employer there was wrong payment/withdrawal from the EPF account of the appellant Ms. Meena Bhatt (EPF account number UKHLD ) by this office on , the error was rectified later when it came to light, and the correct amount due to the EPF account of the appellant was credited along with the interest earned. The information provided to the appellant towards her RTI application is found to be correct as per the records of this office. Furthermore, month-wise information for period prior to April 2012 is not found to be available with this office and hence this office was unable to provide the same, and therefore, year-wise information was provided to the appellant. The current balance (with interest earned) in all four EPF accounts of the appellant as per this office s records, is found to be as below: EPF Account Number Employee s share (in Rs.) Employer s share (in Rs.) UKHLD UKHLD UKHLD UKHLD Furthermore, the appellant does not have prescribed 10 years contributory service period as on date, hence, the appellant is not eligible for monthly pension, however, the appellant is eligible for either scheme certificate mentioning details of her service under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 or withdrawal benefit from the Employees Pension Scheme as per extant scheme rules. 4. The Commission after hearing the submissions of the parties and perusing the records available, finds that the respondent authority has provided sufficient information to the appellant. The explanation given is satisfactory. Penalty proceedings are dropped. Disposed of. SD/- Authenticated true copy (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Central Information Commissioner (Dinesh Kumar) Deputy Registrar Copy of decision given to the parties free of cost. CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/ Page 8

9 Addresses of the parties: 1. The CPIO under RTI, EPFO, Sub Regional Office, 2 nd Floor, Khurana Complex, Opp. Jaji Court, Nanital Road,, Haldwani, Uttarakhand. 2. Ms. Meena Bhatt, CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/ Page 9