The Wire: New Delhi: Tuesday, July 10, 2018.
Reacting
sharply to a case where pension was denied to a widow after the Employees
Provident Fund Organisation began making payments to bank accounts directly, as
the widow had earlier been receiving remittances through post office accounts,
the Central Information Commissioner has directed the public authorities and
officers in charge of pension payment to ensure that pensions are not stopped
in this fashion. It also asked such public authorities to release all
information sought by applicants within 48 hours.
Critical of
the conduct of officers in this case, as the widow had been drawing a pension
of Rs 505 per month through her post office account before it was stopped, the
Commission also directed that a ‘charter of duties’ be prepared in the
department to fix responsibilities for dereliction.
In the order,
Central Information Commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu called upon the
authorities and officers “to communicate in-person to the pensioner about
requirements like furnishing certificate, change of account and if needed, send
a messenger to the house of the pensioner”. He also directed them “to promptly
respond to any oral or written grievance/representation by the pensioner about
non-payment of pension.”
Widow
filed petition after her pension was stopped for not opening bank account
The order
came on a petition filed by a widow, Savitri Devi, who filed an application
under the Right to Information Act with the EPFO, Uttarakhand, as her pension
got stopped. In the application, she had asked for the certified list of widows
of M/s Nadehi Sugar Mill who were pension beneficiaries, a list of widows whose
pension had been stopped, the reasons for the stoppage of her pension and
whether it would ever be released or not.
In his
response, the central public information officer (CPIO) had on April 21, 2017,
refused to provide information on the first two points under Section 8 (1) (j)
of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply and subsequently with the
refusal of the first appellate authority to pass any order, the appellant had
moved the Commission which on April 12, 2018, noted the explanation of Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) Kartikey Singh in the matter.
The
Commission said Singh had submitted that as per the provisions, the “CPIO was
not enjoined to provide third party information to the appellant under Section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005 as the said information pertained to other
P.F./Pension accounts.”
‘Information
related to PF account of an employee is neither third party information nor
personal information’
However, the
Commission held that it had earlier in its final order in a case in March 2017
“held that information related to the P.F. account of an employee is neither
third party information and nor personal information”. Therefore, it noted that
the CPIO was bound to provide information related to other P.F./Pension
accounts maintained at his office”.
On the
stoppage of family pension being paid to Savitri Devi, the widow of Sri Rajpal,
the Commission held that it was intimated that she was “a beneficiary of family
pension under the erstwhile Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1971 (later replaced by
the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995)”.
The order
further recorded that “at the time of grant of monthly pension, some of the
beneficiaries of the said scheme had opted for receipt of their monthly pension
through their accounts maintained in post offices.”
However, this
mechanism of payment of monthly pension through post office accounts was
discontinued by EPFO and the PPO files
maintained at Post Offices were recalled. All such pensioners were advised to
open bank accounts in a core banking solution (CBS) enabled bank branch, and
provide a copy of the bank passbook (attested by concerned bank manager) to
EPFO for suitable amendment in their PPO and release of pension through their
savings bank account.
The reason as
to why the pension of Savitri Devi was stopped in the present case was that she
had not completed above procedure. Hence, her pension was released till August
2015 through her post office account and stopped thereafter, Singh had
submitted before the Commission. This, he said, had also been intimated to her
in the reply to her RTI application.
The RPFC also
submitted that as Savitri Devi’s representative had visited the office on March
21, 2018 and submitted an attested copy of her bank passbook along with
physical copy of her life certificate, her PPO had been amended and her monthly
pension had been released along with the arrears.
The
Commission, however, held that it was not this simple a case but it was a “case
of stopping her pension of Rs 505 for more than three years to the widow”.
‘Suspension
of pension amounted to denial of right to life’
It held that
the RPFC Kartikey Singh “did not show any proof that he or his office has
intimated Savitri Devi that she has to open a bank account and provide the
account number otherwise the pension would be stopped. The PF based pension is
an amount that sustains the pensioner to a great extent and its suspension for
three years could be denial of her right to life. Such pension related
information is related to life related issues and it should have been provided
within 48 hours.”
The
Commission also pulled up the EPFO for its conduct saying it should have tried
to personally contact and advise the widow pensioner. “Instead of stopping of
pension they should have personally contacted and advised her to open a bank
account of at least continued the payment of pension until bank account was
opened.”
‘Nobody in
the public authority exhibited any human concern’
But it
lamented that “nobody in the public authority exhibited any amount of human
concern towards the poor widow and left her to suffer without pension for more
than three years.”
“It is a case
of inhuman governance by the public authority. It is also an issue of not
providing information to the pensioner under the public authority’s core
functioning area i.e. disbursing pension based on PF. The sad part is that the
public authority did not even bother to resume pension payment to the widow at
least on her RTI application,” Acharyulu said.
In view of
all these reasons, the Commission said it had directed the CPIO to show-cause
why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him and also explain why the
public authority should not be directed to pay compensation.
In the recent
order, Acharyulu noted that in April this year, the Commission had come to the
conclusion that “the pensioner had suffered unduly due to stoppage of her
monthly pension and directed that all similar pension cases should be examined
by EPFO Haldwani and an action taken report submitted to the CIC.”
‘CPIOs to
respond to pension related requests within 48 hours’
Having gone
through the action taken report presented by Singh, Acharyulu ordered the EPFO
to “circulate” an “order to all the branches / subordinate public authorities,
asking them to maintain a register indicating that the pensioner was personally
communicated the requirements for continued payment of pension etc. and that
each CPIO shall respond to pension related requests within 48 hours”.
Lamenting
that the “officers holding high ranks such as CPIO and Assistant PF
Commissioner” had passed the buck in the present case, he also recommended to
the CEO, EPFO to constitute a working group and evolve a charter of duties of
each employee or officer and publish the same in their respective branches –
saying it was also mandatory under Section 4 of the RTI Act – so that they do
not take such excuse routinely.
.JPG)
.JPG)
