Central Information Commission
Arup Kumar Dutta vs Eastern Coalfields Limited on 16 December, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/ECFLT/C/2020/127275
Arup Kumar Dutta ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Eastern Coalfield Limited, RTI Cell,
J.K. Ropeways, P.O-Kajora Gram,
District-Paschim Bardhman - 713338,
West Bengal. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15/12/2021
Date of Decision : 15/12/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 22/02/2020
CPIO replied on : 20/03/2020
First appeal filed on : 03/06/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 22/06/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/09/2020
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2020 seeking the following information;1
1. I have completed more than 31 years pensionable service at ECL, the payment of my pension under CHPS, 1998 is not done under clause 10 parargraph, sub paragraph 1.
2. No benefit is given under Coal India Contributory Pension Scheme.
3. No transporting allowance regarding the transporting of household materials to my residential home address C/o Mr. AmalenduBineshDwag, near G-Space Computer Centre, Kundunda Bazar, P.O. Bishnupur, W.B is not paid till date though the relevant bill are submitted at the office of J.N. Ropeways, ECL.
4. Deposited arrear Provident Fund of 2017 pay revision is not paid till date.
The CPIO furnished point wise reply to the complainant on 20.03.2020 stating as under :-
1) You are very much aware that C.M.P.S is settled by CMPF authority directly under information to this office. It is revealed after settlement of your claim of pension that though you have completed 31 Years pensionable service.
You have not attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years but you have taken resignation w.e f. 10.01.2019 prior to your superannuation. Your date of birth in B- form register is 07.06.1961 accordingly your date of superannuation on 30.06.2021, balance remaining service of 2 years 05 months 20 days. As per schedule 2 sub paragraph 3 of paragraph 10. It is clearly mentioned that basis of determination of pension payable to an employee opting to draw pension before the age of superannuation is mentioned in schedule (2) of CMPS Act 1998 whose photocopy enclosed for your ready reference. If you are not satisfied with the reply of Point 1, you can directly ask information from C.M.P.F. Commissioner in this regard under RTI ACT .
2) Regarding Coal mines contributory pension scheme you are advised to meet with Nodal officer Pension Cell E.C.L. H.Q.
3) You have claimed for Transporting allowance from your residence Qr. To Home Town. In this context please refer Coal India TA-DA circular Ref. no. CIL/C- 5A(PC)/TA-2010/164 dated 03.10.2020 Circular Part C 14 (i) . It is clearly mentioned that in case of resignation the employee is not entitled for any Traveling and Transporting allowance. (The photocopy is enclosed for ready reference) 2
4) Regarding payment of PF & VPF Arrear pay revision you are aware that your settlement of CMPF was done before CPF 03/2019, whereas the Arrear PF & VPF amount was deposited before CMPF authority in the month of June 2019. For claiming P.F. & VPF amount supplementary application for settlement is required. As per office record you have not submitted any claim till date. Hence you are requested to submit your claim along with photocopy I Card, resignation letter and final PF settlement letter issued from C.M.P.F. authority."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 03.06.2020. FAA's order dated 22.06.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complainton the ground of misleading reply received from the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant:Along with Advocate S. Chaudhary present through video- conference.
Respondent: Represented by Sumedha Reshmi, Assistant Manager (P) present through video-conference.
The Advocate of the Complainant narrated his grievance regarding discrepancy in the pension service benefits to him post retirement by the Respondent organization. He further harped on the fact that the information provided by the CPIO was wrong and misleading.
The Rep. of CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Complainant, however if he has any further grievance he may file the same on online PG portal of the Respondent which will be addressed by the competent authority accordingly.
Decision The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record and after hearing submissions of both the parties observes that as far as mandate of RTI Act is concerned; the CPIO has provided appropriate reply along with available 3 information and provided further clarifications during the hearing to the Complainant in terms of the provisions of RTI Act.
Further, the relief sought by the Complainant regarding discrepancy in his post services retirement benefits by Respondent organization concededly forms a nature of grievance and is outside the scope of adjudication of the Commission under RTI Act. The superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments over the course of time.
In particular, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."(Emphasis Supplied) And, more recently, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs. Gurpreet Kaur(W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma's case to emphasize as under:
"8. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the powers of the Commission are confined to the powers as stated in the RTI Act...."
Having observed as above, no further action is warranted in the matter.
4However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of Complainant and advises him to pursue his grievance through an administrative mechanism as suggested by the Rep. of CPIO during the hearing.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 5