Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Shafquat Anis Nizami vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 4 June, 2025

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                     के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                                 बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NPCOI/A/2024/122958

Shri Shafquat Anis Nizami                                       ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, NPCIL                                                  ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                          :   02.06.2025
Date of Decision                         :   02.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner           :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :          13.02.2024
PIO replied on                    :          27.03.2024
First Appeal filed on             :          06.05.2024
First Appellate Order on          :          08.05.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :          23.07.2024

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-

"1. Kindly provide the names and designations of the employees working in HR, F&A, CMM, and administrative support services personnel working in different directorates as of now, whether Executive or Workmen, working on HQ roll as well as at Mumbai and other locations.

a) Please categorize them into Executive and Workmen, indicating their joining date and length of service at the same location.

b) Additionally, I request a list of Executives and workmen who have been transferred Inter-Location due to company interest and individual interest, whether for personal or medical reasons, in the past 5 years up to the present date, on HQ Roll at Mumbai/other locations.

2. As per company HQI-1035, which is the Transfer Policy, please provide list of executives holding sensitive post as per CVC guidelines working on HQ Roll at Mumbai and other locations during the past 5 years.

a) Please categorize transfers by type (in-department, inter-department, or inter- location) and also provide the Average Length of service before transfer.

b) If NPCIL follows CVC guidelines on sensitive posts, you are requested to please provide Quarterly Reports (during the last 5 years for executives on HQ Roll at Mumbai or other locations) sent to the Central Vigilance Commission indicating sensitive posts and their Rotation/Transfer in compliance with the guidelines of CVC, as mentioned in HQI-1035.

3) How many contracts are being dealt with by Sh. Puneet Kumar, Sr Manager (HR) at Noida Transit Accommodation and Liaison Office, New Delhi, being in-

charge of both offices since his joining at Noida Transit Accommodation/Liaison Office, New Delhi? Etc."

The CPIO, Sr. Manager (HR), Liaison Office vide letter dated 27.03.2024 replied as under:-

"1. In this regard, it is informed that you being an employee of NPCIL, may access the requested details of employees at Prithvi Intranet: (http://10.10.2.12:8081/ applications/NP/CIIDirectory/index.cfm). The said information is also available at npcil.nic.in as per section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005.

(a) In this regard, a copy of Office Order dated 21/06/2013 regarding categorization of Workmen is attached as Annexure-A (02 pages). As far as date of joining and length of service at the same location of the employees working on HQ rolls are concerned, the information is to be taken from individual's "Personal records" and "Professional records" and the same is defined as "Personal Information" as per HQI Endorsement No.02/2021 dated 18/02/2021. Copy of the same is attached as Annexure -B (03 pages). Some of the available information is voluminous in nature, collection and collation of information sought will disproportionately divert the resources under section 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005.

In view of the above, you may visit and inspect the documents at CPIO Office, 11- S-26, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai 400 094 on a mutually agreed convenient date at your own cost.

(b) In this regard, it is informed that copy of transfer registers are voluminous in nature, collection and collation of information sought will disproportionately divert the resources under section 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005. In view of the above, you may visit and inspect the documents at CPIO Office, 11- S-26, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai 400 094 on a mutually agreed convenient date at your own cost.

2. In this regard, it is informed that no recorded information is available.

(a) In this regard, it is informed that no recorded information is available.

(b) In this regard, it is informed that "Yes', NPCIL follows CVC guidelines on sensitive posts. However, Quarterly Reports sent to the Central Vigilance Commission contains various confidential and sensitive information related to vigilance. Hence, quarterly report can not be shared as information sought is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Etc."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.05.2024. The FAA vide order dated 08.05.2024 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the Appellant seeking complete information contesting the applicability of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.

Written submission dated 30.05.2025 has also been received from the PIO, NPCIL reiterating the aforementioned responses sent to the Appellant. It has also been contended by the Respondent that file notings of 2 pages can be provided to the Appellant in response to the query number 8, upon redacting exempt information applying the Section 10 of the RTI Act.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Present Respondent: Smt. Shradhha Gupta - CPIO, Sr. Manager(HR); Shri Punit Kumar - deemed PIO and Shri Chetan Virkar - Vigilance were present through video conference during hearing representing NPCIL.

Both parties reiterated their respective contentions with the Respondent stating that information available on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act. He had even been granted inspection of the documents and admitted that the written submission filed by the Respondent has also been provided to him.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent has duly furnished information available on records, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, in terms of the provisions of the Act. Considering the fact that the response of the PIO is legally appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)