Central Information Commission
S A Ansari vs Food Corporation Of India on 24 January, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/FCIND/A/2022/113664
CIC/FCIND/A/2022/142454
Shri S A Ansari ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Food Corporation of India
Date of Hearing : 24.01.2024
Date of Decision : 24.01.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since appellant is same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed together for
hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
113664 08.12.2021 10/11.02.2022 24.01.2022 - 27.03.2022
142454 07.02.2022 18.02.2022 11.03.2022 - 12.09.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/FCIND/A/2022/113664 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.12.2021 seeking information on following points:-
"1) Documentary proof showing what was the rate of interest on HBA to whom sanctioned i.e employee/Officer at R.O Shimla during the period 1994-95 & how much overall interest on HBA was recovered either at R.O. Shimla or else where vide which the demortgage deed regularized by FCI, the copy of the same i.e mortgage deed of any one may also be furnished to the undersigned.
2) In my case of HBA sanctioned by the authority R.O. Shimla for amounting to Rs. 245250/- & full and finally released to the undersigned during the period 1994-95. In this regard, it may be confirmed that after recovered of Principle amount of HBA amounting to Rs. 245250/- what total amount of interest was applicable in my case & other cases and how many in installment per month was to be recovered from my salary or any other source Page 1 of 5 on behalf of FCI, R.O. Shimla & base on monthly equal installment of interest when full & final was to be closed for further deduction from my salary."
On non-receipt of response from the CPIO the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.01.2022 which was not adjudicated by FAA. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 30/31.03.2022 has been received from PIO as under:
"..Kindly refer to the above citied subject and letter dated 15.03.2022 received on 28.03.2022 that information sought by sh. S.A Ansari has already been provided to him by this office vide letter No: A/Cs/RTI/RO Shimla/2021-22/1836 dated 10/11.02.2022.(copy enclosed). It is further stated that the information sought by the applicant pertains to the financial year 1994- 1995 i.e. 28 years old and not specific in nature. It is further informed that the record pertains to 1994- 1995 has already been weed out under "Swactha Pakhwara" drive as per FCI circular: 90 dated 20.26/05/1977 and Circular no10-4(24)/79- OMISS dated 07.03.1989. Hence, desired information is not available with this office as the entire sub ledgers of the year 1994-95 were weeded out. As per point no.2 applicant has desired information as "what total amount of interest was applicable in my case & other cases and how many in installment per month was to be recovered from my salary or any other source on behalf of FCI, R.O. Shimla & base on monthly installment of interest when full and final was to be closed for further deduction from my salary". Hence as per RTI act as questions sought are of interpretative in essence and Creation /interpretation of information is out of the purview of public authority.
As such this office has provided all kinds of cooperation to the applicant in proving the sought information..."
Written submission dated 08.01.2024 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present via VC Respondent: Mohd. Aseem Ansari, AGM, FCI, Shimla The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He submitted that he had sought information relating to rate of interest on HBA to whom sanctioned i.e employee/Officer at R.O Shimla during the period 1994-95 & how much overall interest on HBA was recovered either at R.O. Shimla or elsewhere Page 2 of 5 and matters relating thereto. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the information sought by Appellant has already been provided to him by their office vide letter dated 10/11.02.2022. He further stated that the information sought by the applicant pertains to the financial year 1994- 1995 i.e. 28 years old and not specific in nature. He apprised the Commission that the desired information is not available in their official record since the entire sub ledgers of the year 1994- 95 were weeded out under "Swactha Pakhwara" drive as per FCI circular: 90 dated 20.26/05/1977 and Circular no10-4(24)/79- OMISS dated 07.03.1989.
Decision:
In the light of the foregoing facts it is evident that appropriate reply, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Appellant. The Commission is in agreement with argument placed forth by the Respondent. In the given circumstances, the Commission finds no requirement for intervention in this case under the RTI Act.
(2) CIC/FCIND/A/2022/142454 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.02.2022 seeking information as under :
"...1. Salary of my last month Dec.20l.9 which was due to be released to me on 31.12.2019, when the same has been released or not l am not aware so far, as such it is requested to provide me the statement showing details payment of my salary of Dec.2019 & out of which what is the deduction/recovery along with it done by accounts Division.
2. The said dues was to be released as on 31.12.2019, I got this payment on 17.01,2020 without any detail statement showing update so deducted on account of CPF year wise since applicable to start & up to over of my service, deduction done against my CPF account no.83715 & similarly deduction of VPF from my salary also, so the same update detail statement showing year wise deduction & interest etc. on this account what so ever worked out may please be provided me for my satisfaction..."
The CPIO/Dy. Manager, CPF Division vide letter dated 18.02.2022 replied that the sought information does not pertain to CPF Division. The CPIO/Dy. GM (Bills), vide letter dated 24.02.2022 furnished information as under:
1. The copies of last month's salary Dec.2019 details are enclosed. Invoice No. 2019 12667 447 dt. 31.12.2019 Page 3 of 5
2. The copies of CPF final payment on 25Feb, 2020, details are enclosed. invoice No, 202002837461 Dt. 13.12.2020
3. This point does not pertain to Finance Division.
4. Copies of encashment of EL and HPL details are enclosed. E/L lnvoice No. 202007514299 Dt. 10/08/2020 HPL lnvoice No.202007514304 Dt 10/08/2020
5. This point does not pertain to Finance Division
6. This point does not pertain to Finance Division
7. The requisite details, copies of disbursement payments by FCI zonal office (N) are enclosed w.e.f 31/12/2019 to 20/11/2021
8. Retiring TA bill returned to manager ZE with the following objection:
1. Either train ticket or toll receipts not enclosed
2. Builty for goods transportations not enclosed
9. This point does not pertain to Finance Division.
PIO/Dy. GM, ZE Section, ZO, Noida furnished point-wise reply vide letter dated 15/22.03.2022.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2022 which was not adjudicated by FAA. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 08.01.2024 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 18.01.2024 has been received from the Respondent and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present via VC Respondent: Mr. Nirpama Gupta, Manager (A/c), FCI ZO(N), Noida The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that the information sought at point No. 9 of the RTI Application has not been furnished to him.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information has been duly furnished to Appellant from their official record. She averred that the information related to salary and salary slips of the Appellant has been duly furnished to him. As regards the information sought at Page 4 of 5 point No. 9 of the RTI Application the same relates to personal information of third- party and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the custodian of information. Furthermore, written submission dated 18.01.2024 filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
The Appeal is disposed of 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 5 of 5