Central Information Commission
Domnic C. Fernandes vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 12 October, 2021
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/HPCLD/A/2020/660936
Mr. Domnic C Fernandes ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited,
I7, Jamshedji, Tata Road,
Churchgate, Mumbai.
400020
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 29-11-2019 FA : 07-01-2020 SA : 15.01.2020
CPIO : 27-12-2019 FAO : 08-01-2020 Hearing: 07-10-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
"Kindly share the action taken & including file noting on our Associations which has been represented by the retired employees of HPCL letter dated 21st Jan 2019 on SBFS DCS which was introduced w e f Jan 2007 thru DPE guidelines in your respective dept Encl letter addressed copy of hon'ble C MD HPCL with receiving for ready ref.
Kindly share ESSO LIL employees after nationalization became HPCL employees who had retired eff 2007 to 2016 under which provision of SBFS DCS along with pay revision they have been deprived from SBFS DCS PENSION benefits despite having contributed in the said scheme."
2. The CPIO had denied the requested information under section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005. Aggrieved by the CPIO order the appellant filed the first appeal dated 07-01-2020 on the ground that the information had not been provided and requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority disposed the appeal and upheld CPIO's reply vide order dated 08-01- 2020. He has filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. Ms. Dipti Mistri (Representative of the appellant) attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Amol B Taori, CPIO/ GM (Finance) attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. Both the parties submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
5. The representative of the appellant reiterated the contents of RTI application and submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to the appellant by the respondent on his RTI application dated 29.11.2019. She submitted that wrong and misleading reply has been provided by the respondent. She contended that the respondent vide their letter dated 14.03.2016, admitted that the retired employees will continue to receive the Pension Benefits under "HPCL, SBFS-DCS Pension Schemes," whereas the respondent in their recent letter dated 23.08.2021, mentions that ESSO/LIL pension matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, further as per the wage settlement the SBFS-DCS benefits have been given to all retired employees effective from the year 2007 to 2016. Hence in view of the above admission by HPCL in the said letter dated 23.08.2021, they ought to give details of payment made to the appellant in respect to SBF-DCS (Pay revision LTS effective October, 2008). She further insisted on redressal of the grievances of the appellant.
6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 27.12.2019, they have informed the appellant that "as the President of the Pensioners Social Welfare Association have filed Writ Petition No. 163 of 2018 which is still pending before High Court in connection with the subject matter against the Corporation. He further submitted that the information sought is held by the public authority and is required to be used by the Corporation in position in the pending litigation. Sharing of information held by the Corporation in fiduciary capacity with regards to the same at this juncture, would tantamount to jeopardize the Corporation interest in the matter and also goes against the tenets of Natural Justice." Therefore, the information sought is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1)
(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further submitted that both the queries of the appellant has already been replied adequately and a copy of written submission has also been provided to the appellant.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding action taken & file noting on appellant's associations which has been represented by the retired employees of HPCL letter dated 21.01.2019 on SBFS DCS which was introduced w e f January, 2007 through DPE guidelines and other related queries. That w.r.t the information sought at point no. 1 of the RTI Application, the respondent has already informed the appellant that since ESSO/LIL pension matter is sub-judice before Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence no action has been taken on representation from appellant's association. The respondent also clarified vide their written submission dated 23.08.2021 that as per the wage settlement, the SBFS DCS benefit has been given to all retired employees effective 2007 to 2016 including appellant, hence eligible retired employees have not been deprived from SBFS-DCS pensionary benefit as per the extent guidelines. It has been observed by the Commission that at point no. 2 of the RTI Application, the appellant has sought that under which provision of SBFS-DCS, ESSO LIL employees had been retired effective 2007 to 2016 along with pay revision they have been deprived from SBFS DCS PENSION benefits despite having contributed in the said scheme which is more in the nature of clarifications. It has been observed that the CPIO is not supposed to provide clarifications under the ambit of the RTI Act. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expect to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
8. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
9. In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that w.r.t the information sought at point no. 1 of the RTI Application, the respondent has already informed the appellant that since the matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore no action has been taken on representation from appellant's association. Further, the information sought at point no. 2 of the RTI Application is more in the nature of clarifications which is beyond the scope of section 2 (f) of the RTI Act and cannot be provided to the appellant. Therefore, the denial of respondent is in order and same is being upheld by the Commission.
10. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 07-10-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited,
I7, Jamshedji, Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai.
400020
2. Domnic C. Fernandes