The Central Information Commission has directed the Puducherry Co-operative Sugar Mills and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to revisit and correct their reply to an RTI application dealing with Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) contributions of a former mill employee, after finding that parts of the response were “vague and evasive.”
The order, passed on 19 November 2025 by Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari in Second Appeal No. CIC/UTPON/A/2024/114054, arises from an RTI application filed in September 2023 by M. Mahalingam, a former Senior Clerk and later Head Time Keeper at the Puducherry Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (PCSM), Lingareddipalayam. Mahalingam had sought detailed month-wise information on EPF deductions and remittances from 1987 to October 2017, including the quantum of contributions credited to his EPF and pension accounts and records of amounts recovered by the mill and remitted to the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO).
The Public Information Officer responded on 27 November 2023, confirming that EPF remittances for employees who joined before 1987 began from March 1987 and stating that employees’ contributions at 12% of salary and pension contributions at 8.33% of the statutory ceiling had been deposited in Mahalingam’s EPF and pension accounts. However, for several key queries, the PIO claimed the information was “not clear” and cited non-availability of old records due to the closure of the sugar mill, which stopped crushing operations in April 2017.
Unsatisfied, Mahalingam filed a first appeal. The First Appellate Authority, by order dated 31 January 2024, upheld the PIO’s reply, noting that additional information had been provided through a subsequent letter of 10 January 2024. In that letter, the mill stated that amounts recovered from Mahalingam’s salary along with the management’s contribution up to 12% of the statutory ceiling had been remitted to his EPF account for his service period, and that EPF slips used to be issued every year by EPFO before records were computerised. It also maintained that individual EPF accounts were not maintained by the mill and suggested that Mahalingam download his passbook using his UAN.
Mahalingam then approached the Commission in second appeal, arguing that replies to questions 3 to 7 of his RTI application were incomplete, vague and not in line with the RTI Act. He also complained that the PIO’s reply was delayed by 42 days beyond the statutory 30-day limit and sought imposition of a monetary penalty. He further alleged that the mill management had not remitted equal contributions for all employees to the PF authorities, pointing to the discrepancy between the 12% employee contribution and the 8.33% pension component mentioned in the reply.
During the hearing on 17 November 2025, held via video conference, the Commission noted that there was no proof on record that the second appeal had been served on the respondent, and the mill’s representative confirmed that they had not received a copy earlier. The respondent reiterated that certain details could not be supplied because the period of information sought was not specified, and because some records were untraceable due to the mill’s closure.
The Commission, however, pointed out that the RTI application clearly mentioned the period from 1987 to October 2017 in its preamble and that the PIO had failed to consider this while dealing with queries 3, 4 and 7. On being confronted with the text of the application during the hearing, the respondent conceded that the earlier stand was erroneous and agreed to revisit those points and issue a revised reply.
In its detailed order running across eight pages, the Commission held that the replies to points 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the RTI application were in conformity with the RTI Act and accordingly upheld them. At the same time, it found the responses to points 3, 4 and 7 to be vague and evasive, and therefore not compliant with the law. On this limited aspect, the second appeal was allowed.
The Commission directed the respondent to revisit queries 3, 4 and 7 and issue a fresh, point-wise reply along with all relevant available information to Mahalingam, free of cost, within four weeks of receiving the order. Significantly, the Commission also advised the respondent to attempt to obtain the required details from the EPFO if the information was not available in the mill’s own records, rather than simply pleading non-availability.
Apart from the substantive RTI directions, the Commission also took exception to the manner in which the mill had filed its last written submission dated 11 November 2025, noting that it did not carry the name or contact details of the officer signing it, which is contrary to the Department of Personnel and Training’s Office Memorandum dated 6 October 2015. The respondent has been told to file a revised written submission on the mill’s letterhead with proper name, designation and contact details, and to send a copy to the appellant within one week. The First Appellate Authority has been tasked with ensuring compliance with all these directions.
While the Commission’s order does not record any specific finding on the prayer for penalty against the PIO, it implicitly focuses on corrective compliance: supplying clearer EPF-related information, seeking data from EPFO where necessary, and ensuring that future RTI-related correspondence adheres to basic identification norms. For former employees like Mahalingam, the decision provides a renewed opportunity to obtain a complete picture of their EPF contributions and entitlements over decades of service.
Case Details : M Mahalingam vs PIO, Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Co-Operative Department, V.V.P. Nagar, Thattanchavady, Puducherry – 605009
