Central Information Commission
Inderjeet Singh Sidhu vs Edcil (India) Limited on 29 March, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका, नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/EDCIL/A/2017/181491/00337
File no.: CIC/EDCIL/A/2017/181491
In the matter of:
Inderjeet Singh Sidhu
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
EDCIL India Limited
Corporate Office: EDCIL House,
18 A, Sector - 16A, Film City,
Noida - 201 301
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 05/08/2017 CPIO replied on : 04/10/2017 First appeal filed on : 09/09/2017 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 07/12/2017 Date of Hearing : 28/03/2019 Date of Decision : 28/03/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present
Respondent: Shri Sunil Mathur, DGM(HR) & PIO, EDCIL India Limited Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
a) Copy of the note sheets on which his case for release of Gratuity has been processed, duly attested by the Competent Authority or concerned Official in EDCIL.1
b) Copy of papers in file relating to above, duly attested by the competent authority or concerned official in EDCIL.
c) Copy of EDCIL rules for processing and release of Gratuity, duly attested by the competent authority or concerned official in EDCIL.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he has not received any reply regarding the points raised in the RTI application till date.
The PIO submitted that an adequate reply has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 04.10.2017 He further submitted that as of now his gratuity amount has been released in his bank account and thus his grievance has been redressed. He handed over a copy of written submissions dated 27.03.2019, both to the Commission and to the appellant.
Observation:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and based on the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the PIO by his letter dated 04.10.2017 has redressed the grievance of the appellant regarding his claim for gratuity. But the question remains that no categorical reply was provided to the appellant on the points raised by him through his RTI application till date. The contention of the PIO that sufficient information has been provided to the appellant on 04.10.2017 is also incorrect as that letter merely shows that the amount of gratuity has been released in favour of the appellant and is not considered as a reply under the RTI Act.
Decision:
The PIO, Sunil Mathur is directed to provide a categorical reply on every point raised in the RTI application along with copies of all the relevant note sheets on which his case for release of Gratuity was processed, after applying the procedure provided u/s 10 of the RTI Act, thereby masking the names and designations of all the third parties, free of cost to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.2
File no.: CIC/EDCIL/A/2017/181491 The PIO is also warned to remain careful while dealing with RTI applications and ensure that a specific reply to each RTI application is provided within the time line prescribed under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3