##PAGE1##

के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग१, मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067

ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा /Second Appeal No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2025/110994 Manju D C ….अपीलकता१/Appellant

VERSUS बनाम

CPIO, Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Mysuru ... ঋितवादीगण /Respondents

Date of Hearing : 08/04/2026 Date of Decision : 08/04/2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Ashutosh Chaturvedi

Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:

RTI application filed on 29/01/2025 CPIO replied on 29/01/2025 First appeal filed on 13/02/2025 FAA’s order dated 10/03/2025 Second Appeal dated 28/03/2025

Information sought:

The appellant has filed RTI application dated 29/01/2025 seeking the following information:

“Provident fund details of the following employee working in Grand Mercure Hotel situated near Highway Circle, Bannimantapa, Mysuru:

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2025/110994 Page 1 of 4

1 / 5

1. Hariprasad Menon (Stores Department)

2. Yashodara (Engineering Department)

3. Srinivasa (Accounts Department) 4. Geetha (Accounts Department)”

2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant on 29/01/2025 stated as under:

“With reference to your application under Right to Information Act 2005, to provide information regarding PF details, it is informed that as per Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, the information sought relates to third party information, the

disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. [Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 27734 of 2012] the Supreme Court held: Any "third party information" the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest can be withheld as the disclosure of the same

shall cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.

Hence on this ground the information requested is denied.”

3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant filed the First Appeal with the first Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority vide order dated

10/03/2025 stated as under:

“After perusal of the concerned file, it is noticed that the information requested was denied to the RTI applicant as per Section 8(1) (j) since the information sought relates to third party information. The mandate under the Act is to provide

the information sought to the applicant within the rules.

The applicant desired to know the PF details of other 4 persons which is personal information. However, the details of PF Numbers of such persons can be shared. Hence, CPIO is directed to share the PF number as per the extant applicable

rules, within 1 week of this Order.

Since all available information is shared with the applicant, this appeal under RTI Act; 2005 is disposed off.

If the Appellant is not satisfied with the decision, he may prefer second appeal before the Central Information Commission, New Delhi within 90 days of the

receipt of the order.”

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2025/110994 Page 2 of 4

2 / 5

4. Challenging the decision of the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant filed the Instant Second Appeal on 28/03/2025.

5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Hansraj Roy RPFC-II/CPIO and Vidya Shivprakash Senior Social

Security Assistant participated in the hearing on VC The Appellant has not availed the opportunity to participate in the hearing despite due notice of hearing. The Respondent reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that information sought was denied under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He further apprised the bench that the details of PF Number of the specified people have further been shared in compliance with the First Appellate Authority Order.

DECISION Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made by the Respondent during hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by