Central Information Commission
K Unnikumaran vs Department Of Defence Production on 15 February, 2018
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx Hkou
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION BHAWAN
ckck xaxukFk ekxZ] eqfujdk
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
ubZ fnYyh-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
File No. CIC/SD/A/2016/000187/DODFP/SD
Date of Hearing :13/02/2018
Date of Decision:13/02/2018
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : K Unnikumaran
Respondent : CPIO,
Heavy Vehicles Factory,
Avadi, Chennai-600054
RTI application filed on : 04/01/2016
PIO replied on : 02/02/2016
First appeal filed on : 30/03/2016
First Appellate Authority : 02/06/2016
order
Second Appeal dated : 20/06/2016
Information sought:
The Appellant sought to know the scale of pay granted to the ex-journeymen who were notionally promoted to Supervisor 'B' (Tech) on various dates under authority letter of OFB Calcutta dated 18.01.1995 and 24.04.1996 and administrative reasons for granting him lesser scale of pay than similarly placed notionally promoted employees.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.1
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: M. Sivakumar, JGM & CPIO, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai present through VC.
CPIO submitted that the Appellant was requested to remit applicable photo copying charges for providing available and relevant orders but the Appellant did not send the same.
CPIO further clarified that the Appellant has been pursuing a case of giving arrears in case of notional promotion from ex-Journeymen to Supervisor 'B'(Tech). He further stated that this was a long drawn case from 1992 onwards and finally it was decided to give only notional promotion with no resultant arrears.
Decision Commission observes that FAA has erroneously stated in his order that there is no liability under RTI Act to provide information which is more than 20 years old. FAA's interpretation of Section 8(3) of RTI Act is completely misplaced. There is no such embargo on disclosure of information pertaining to a period beyond 20 years. Merely since records pertain to a period older than 20 years cannot be a ground for denial unless such records have been weeded out as per extant retention policies.
Appellant has also not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to plead his case/contest CPIO's submission. Commission upholds the submission of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner 2 File No. CIC/SD/A/2016/000187/DODFP/SD Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 3