Central Information Commission
M V Suresh vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 5 December, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IOCLD/A/2021/633858
M V Suresh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Gujarat Refinery, RTI Cell,
P.O. Jawaharnagar,
District -Vadodara, Gujarat-391320 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/12/2022
Date of Decision : 01/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08/06/2021
CPIO replied on : 03/07/2021
First appeal filed on : 10/07/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 29/07/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.06.2021 seeking the following information:
Sr. Particulars Information sought
No.
1
1. The pension related documents were (1) Photocopy of the file
forwarded to LIC by IOCL on 12th February notings of
2021. IOCL assured vide email below that the IOCL Corporate office in claim will be settled in 6-8 weeks. this regard.
16 weeks (double the period promised) are (2) Photocopy of the going to expire on June 12th 2021. correspondence with LIC by IOCL Why the claim has not been settled till date ? corporate office EMAIL from IOCL in this regard.
(3) Reasons for lying to On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:27 PM pensioner <[email protected]> wrote: on record whereby IOCL stated Dear Maám, the claim will be settled in 6-8 Your claim papers have been forwarded to LIC weeks. on 12.02.2021 and it may take 6-8 weeks for settlement.
This is for your information. For further assistance if any, please revert.
Regards,
Separation Team
Question Give reasons.
Why did IOCL lie on record to the pensioner ?
2. Are IOCL and their pensioners totally at the (1) Photocopy of the mercy of LIC once the employee retires ? document which states that the retired pensioner should directly correspond with LIC and not with IOCL.
3. Vide email dated April 23, 2021, (1) Photocopy of the Vibha Kumar has stated thus : relevant document wherein the correct figure On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:52 AM of annuity is mentioned.
KUMAR,VIBHA(कुमार वभा),DGM(HR) (2) Details of the credit of
<[email protected]> wrote: Rs.5418/-.
2
(3) The reasons why
a. As per the above documents, Annuity Vibha Kumar gave 2
amount with LICI is Rs 292785/- and different figures for the
pension amount is Rs 2806/- per annuity amount.
month. Photocopies of the
b. Matter has been taken up by our Head documents based on
Office with LICI to get the details of the which Vibha Kumar gave amount of Rs. 5418 credited in the these figures of annuity. nominee account on 16 Mar 21.
Vide table sent by Vibha Kumar the annuity amount is Rs. 2,56,239/-
Question
1. Why did Vibha Kumar give misleading figures on the annuity amount ?
2. Why details of the credit of Rs. 5418/- has not been given till date
4. Vide email dated April 26th 2021, Vibha(1) Photocopy of the document based on which Kumar says "however it appears that the Vibha Kumar has made a payment is perhaps less by Rs. 1,000/- per month." statement that the payment was perhaps Why did Vibha Kumar make such a vague less by Rs. 1000/-. comment with regard to payment ?
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 3:23 PM KUMAR,VIBHA(कुमार वभा),DGM(HR) <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Sir, Our Refinery Head Office, New Delhi has taken up with LIC for the break-up of 5,418/- paid to the beneficiary. It is understood that LIC has paid 3 months arrears, however it appears that the payment is perhaps less by Rs. 1,000/- per month. Our Refinery Head Office has also requested LIC to look into the issue and restore full pension with arrears.
3QUESTION
1. If pension issues are being handles by LIC as claimed by IOCL, then how Vibha Kumar came to know that payment was perhaps less by Rs. 1000/- ?
2. Is IOCL cheating their pensioners ? I am asking this question as the casual reference to short payment by Rs.1000/- as above is strange and appalling.
5. Why pension has not been paid for the Photocopy of the months of April and, May and June 2021 ? documents based on which pension has been stopped.
6. Why no letter has been received by the (1) Photocopy of the pensioner till date from IOCL or LIC whereby document in this regard. detailed calculation sheet is given with regard to pension.
7. I had written an email regarding credit of Rs. Photocopy of the 5,418 ,Rs.1,806, and Rs.1,806 on 16.03.2021 document relating to the ,03.04.2021, 01.05.2021 respectively particulars of the amounts credited.
QUESTION Why no reply has been received till date ?
8. QUESTION Photocopy of the What action has IOCL taken against document which shows Ms.T.Gandhi , HR Officer for rude & action has been taken inappropriate behavior with the kin of the against the erring deceased employee - Late Jainandan Prasad employee the then Chief Manager IOCL Ref : Complaint filed on1st Jan.
2021The CPIO replied to the appellant on 03.07.2021 stating as under:-
".....grievances have been made for nonpayment of eligible pension amount to the spouse of our retired employee, Late J.N. Prasad (Employee Code- 60150). It may be noted in this regard that under RTI Act, 4 grievances/allegations/reasons for any action or inaction by any public authority, cannot be raised through RTI application before any CPIO/PIO.
However, as a 'Verbatim Public Grievance' was also made by you, through Grievance Portal of Govt. of India and a copy of redressal reply as sent by the Corporation against the same is attached again for your records."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.07.2021. FAA's order dated 29.07.2021 held as under:-
"..........It is observed that, the Appellant in the RTI Application dated 08.06.2021 has sought detailed calculation of Annuity Payment through LIC of Late J N Prasad, Emp. No. 60150. The same information was sought by the Appellant vide its grievance letter dated 08.06.2021.
Gujarat Refinery vide letter dated 02.07.2021 replied to the Public Grievance dated 08.06.2021, in which the Gujarat Refinery stated that Annuity amount of Rs. 2,92,875/- and pension amount of 2,806/- is due to Mr. J N Prasad. However, a less pension amount @ Rs. 1806/- was released in March 2021 I.E. Rs. 5418/- (for 3 months of Jan, Feb and March 2021) and in April 2021 & May 2021 to the spouse of Late Shri J N Prasad. On receipt of grievance on the issue, the matter was taken up with LIC, New Delhi. The LIC had rectified the error and arrear of Rs. 6000.00 (from January 2021 to June 2021) has been processed by LIC. From July'21onwards, eligible pension amount of Rs. 2806/- per month will be released to Smt. Shanta Prasad, spouse of Late Shri J.N. Prasad. Along with reply dated 02.07.2021, JR also furnished the policy documents related to Late Sh. J N Prasad as available in the record.
PIO, JR vide reply dated 03.07.2021 informed the Appellant that the content of the RTI Application is in the nature of Grievance and information sought vide RTI Application dated 08.06.2021 has already been replied vide letter dated 02.07.2021.
The Appellant in the ground of appeal has alleged that none of the document mentioned in RTI Application dated 08.06.2021 has been provided by PIO, JR and PIO JR has made a mistake of clubbing the grievance petition with RTI Application.5
In this regard, we are to inform that the RTI application filed by the Appellant relates to personal information of third party relating to pension which is prima facie exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Application. However, it is observed that the Appellant has also filed a grievance on 08.06.2021 and content of such grievance is similar to the RTI application dated 08.06.2021. This grievance of the Appellant has already been replied vide letter dated 02.07.2021 along with documents as available in the records, which was again provided by the CPIO, in the RTI Reply dated 03.07.21. Since, the information has already been provided as available in the records, no further information remains to be provided under the RTI Act."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Anil Kumar, CGM (HR)&CPIO present through video-conference.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant vide his RTI Application dated 08.06.2021 sought photocopies of the correspondences exchanged between LIC and IOCL regarding details of calculation of Annuity Payment through LIC to Late J N Prasad, an retired Employee of IOCL . He further apprised the Bench that the same information was also sought by the Appellant through a grievance letter dated 08.06.2021 and that the Gujarat Refinery vide letter dated 02.07.2021 had replied on the Public Grievance portal stating that the Annuity amount of Rs. 2,92,875/- and pension amount of 2,806/- was due to late Mr. J N Prasad. However, less pension amount was released to the spouse/widow of Late Shri J N Prasad. On receipt of grievance on the issue, the matter was taken up with LIC, New Delhi and the latter had since rectified the error and arrear of Rs. 6000.00 (from January 2021 to June 2021) has been processed by LIC. From July, 21 onwards, eligible pension amount of Rs. 2806/- per month is being released to Smt. Shanta Prasad, spouse of Late Shri J.N. Prasad. Along with reply dated 02.07.2021, PIO JR also furnished the policy documents related to Late Sh. J N Prasad as available in their records. Furthermore , PIO, JR vide reply dated 6 03.07.2021 informed the Appellant that the content of the RTI Application is in the nature of Grievance and information sought vide RTI Application dated 08.06.2021 has already been replied vide letter dated 02.07.2021.
The Appellant in the grounds of his appeal alleged that none of the documents mentioned in RTI Application dated 08.06.2021 have been provided by the PIO, JR and that the latter has made a mistake of clubbing the grievance petition with the RTI Application. In this regard, it was informed to the Appellant the matter relates to the pension matter of a third party which is personal information and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Application. However, it is observed that the Appellant in the capacity of the son-in law of the spouse/ Late Sh. J.N. Prasad had also filed a grievance on 08.06.2021 and contents of this grievance is similar to the RTI application dated 08.06.2021. This grievance of the Appellant has already been replied vide letter dated 02.07.2021 along with documents as available in the records which was again provided by the CPIO, in the RTI Reply dated 03.07.21. Since, the information has already been provided as available in the records, no further information remains to be provided under the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission remarked at the outset that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal was denial of information by the FAA under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act ignoring the fact that he was representing his mother- in law. In response to which, the CPIO has clarified the factual status of the matter during hearing as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
On the basis of above said observations, the Commission arrives at a conclusion that the relief claimed in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se and in fact, it is about the Appellant's resolve of bringing to fore his mother-in law's grievance pertaining to non-receipt of entitled pension and clarifications regarding non-release of complete payment from the Respondent's organization.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO supplemented with FAA's order adequately suffices the queries / clarifications raised in the instant RTI Application as per the provisions of RTI Act.7
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] where in it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) 8 In addition to the above, the Commission is in agreement with the order passed by the FAA by denying the information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is furthermore drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such 9 personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Considering the totality of the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case in hand along with the forgoing discussions and the fact that what ever information/ records were available have already been forwarded to the Appellant along with the clarifications/ rectification on the pension front ; the Commission finds no scope of further intervention in the matter more particularly in the absence of the Appellant during hearing.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10