Central Information Commission
Anita Tanaji Shelke vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 24 November, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second Appeal No.CIC/BPCLD/A/2021/124465
Ms. Anita Tanaji Shelke ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
BPCL, Head Office, Bharat Bhawan
4&6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate
P B No. 688, Mumbai-400001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 28-10-2020 FA : 27-01-2021 SA : 28-06-2021
CPIO : 02-12-2020 FAO : 04-03-2021 Hearing: 21-11-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)BPCL, Mumbai. The appellant sought the information is as under:-
Page 1 of 52. The CPIO vide letter dated 02-12-2020 replied to the RTI application. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 27-01- 2021and requested that the information sought should be provided to her. The FAO vide order dated 04-03-2021 upheld CPIO's reply and disposed of the Page 2 of 5 appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to her and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant was present. The respondent, Shri Rajnish, General Manager, BPCL, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that information sought was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing. She further submitted that she has already submitted copy of affidavit in order to prove that she was the legally weeded wife of Late Mr. Tanaji K Shelke.
5. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that Late Mr. Tanaji K Shelke joined the services of the Corporation on 05.09.1984. He was in the habit off remaining on unauthorized absence and was on loss of pay for 1372 days between 2002 to 2016. They further submitted that Late Mr. Tanaji K Shelke was charge sheeted and subsequently dismissed from the service of the respondent organization. They also informed that all the pending dues of Late Mr. Tanaji K Shelke has already been settled to him while he was alive. As regard to the information sought by the appellant, they stated that Late Tanaji K. Shelke had nowhere in his medical dependent declaration form, nomination forms or other company records had declared Ms. Anita Tanaji Shelke as his spouse. On the contrary he has declared some other lady as his spouse whose name is not being disclosed as it constitutes third party personal information. Besides, they contended that no succession certificate has been produced by Ms. Anita Tanaji Shelkein support of her claim, which is normally relied upon in such cases of dispute. Therefore, they expressed their inability to provide the information.
Decision:
Page 3 of 56. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding the service record of Late Mr. Tanaji K Shelke, disciplinary proceeding against him, dues of his PF/Gratuity/Society remaining with the respondent etc. The respondent vide letter dated 02.12.2020 denied the information on the ground of third party information as the appellant's name was not mentioned as wife in the service record available with them. The FAA vide order dated 04.03.2021 endorsed the reply given by the CPIO. The appellant during the course of hearing submitted that she has submitted a copy of the affidavit which may not considered as proper documents to establish her relationship as wife of Late Mr. Tanaji K Shelke.
7. In view of the above, if the appellant provides succession certificate or the legal heir certificate of the competent authority to prove her relationship as wife of Late Mr. Tanaji K Shelke, then the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide revised point-wise information to her, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 21-11-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
BPCL, Head Office, Bharat Bhawan
4&6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate
P B No. 688, Mumbai-400001
2. Ms. Anita Tanaji Shelke
Page 5 of 5