SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5973

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
SARVESH JHUNJHUNWALA – Appellant
Versus
Employees Provident Fund Organisation – Respondent


ORDER

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 10.09.2020 seeking information on the following points. He specifically sought as under:

“I was employed with Price Waterhouse (an exempted trust under PF law) from March 2015 to December 2017 and my provident fund contribution was maintained in their private trust and therefore my employer was not required to generate an UAN for me in relation to my PF contributions. Thereafter, I had left my job and started with another organisation Ernst & Young, who maintains PF contribution at RPF maintained by EPFO and an UAN 101239580802 was created in December 2017. Later, I requested my previous employer Price Waterhouse in Form 13 to transfer my PF balance maintained at their private trust to the RPF account of Ernst and Young and the same was successfully completed and the PF contribution was duly transferred to Account No. MHBAN00436470000029723 of Ernst and Young. Further, Annexure K was also provided by Price Waterhouse to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai, stating my period of service with them. However, the RPF Commissioner has missed to update my employment history at the online EPFO website due to w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top