Central Information Commission
Shri N. K. Sharma vs Central Public Works Dep’T. (Cpwd); ... on 28 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01239 dated .2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri N. K. Sharma
Respondent - Central Public Works Dep't. (CPWD); Elect.
Facts:
The Appellant, who is a retired Office Supdt. of the same office, in his RTI request to the CPIO CPWD refers to his representation dt. 31.03.06 addressed to the Chief Engineer, CPWD. He submitted that the Supply Engineer, CPWD has neither intimated him about any action taken on the points in his representation nor has been able to show any reason for not forwarding the above representation to the Chief Engineer in spite of repeated requests from appellant Shri Sharma. He has therefore sought the following:
1) The action taken on the points raised by him in his representation dt. 31.03.06 and the action taken against the AE (HQ), Shri V.K. Punhani for non submission of Leave Application for his absence from office.
2) The reason for the inordinate/whimsical delay of 2 months in mailing the payment of CGEIS to him. He says that he delay of payment that the office states as non-completion of Form 13 is wrong. He wants the SE (E) to furnish the details of the incomplete Form 13 along with documentary evidence which were not completed after his retirement.
3) The reason for the delay of 4 months in the payment of his Leave Encashment in spite of repeated requests from him. He says the payment was withheld for invalid reasons and wants the SE (E) to state the relevant details of doing so.
The CPIO gave the following reply
1) Information cannot be given to him on the grounds that matter was related to the workings of the department and did not concern him
2) The payment mentioned in this point required a pre-receipted bill having his signature and as soon as it was obtained, the payment was made with no delay form the department.1
3) For the Leave Encashment, he was asked for his Medical Prescription and on production of that, he was given the due payment. Hence the delay was due to him and not the department.
Appellant Shri Sharma, not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, filed his 1st appeal before the Appellate Authority on 19.01.07 saying that neither have the charges framed against Shri V.K. Punhani, the then AE(HQ) mentioned in his representation dt. 31.3.06 addressed to the CE (NDZ 2) been neither investigated nor has he received correct information about the inordinate delay of the payments. Also, he says that an incorrect reply has been given regarding the delay in payment of CGEIS and Leave Encashment. The appellant wants the documentary evidence in support of the SE (E)'s contention as requested by him earlier.
The Appellate Authority gave a considerably delayed reply only on 11.04.07 as below:
1) The payment of LTC advance was made on 20.04.04 after completion of due formalities. The order of Leave Encashment for a period of 299 days was issued on 14.09.06 after making adjustment of leave.
2) The delay in the sanction of leave encashment occurred due to non-regularization of leave and late response from the appellant.
3) As for the payment of CGEIS, the payment was made on 20.07.06 after completion of due formalities.
Not satisfied with the above reply appellant Shri Sharma represented to the st 1 Appellate Authority Shri Anil Kumar ADG (S&P) CPWD reiterating his demands, which also contained some fresh enquiries going beyond mere clarification as is apparent below:
1) The reasons for withholding his representation dt.31.03.06 addressed to the CE (NDZ-II), CPWD for indefinite period and not forwarding it to the same.
2) The reasons for willfully ignoring the annual increment timely sanctioned while drawing his salary for March 2006.2
3) The reasons for making payment of Festival Advance of January 2006 after celebration of the festival.
4) Reasons for intentional delay in making payment of CGEIS. He wants the documentary evidence for the same. He says he is entitled to claim the interest for the delayed period of 2 months.
5) Willfully withholding the entire payment of Leave Encashment on the ground of regularization of short leave period. He wants the rule empowering the E (E) to do so.
6) Reasons for non-payment of LTC and short payment of Retirement PA.
Having received no reply to this second letter to the Appellate Authority, the Appellant appealed to the CIC saying that his mentioned retirement benefits were intentionally delayed and the Authority has not yet been able to supply him sufficient proof on why it was done so. He basically desires documentary evidence form the Authority to convince him that there was no intentional delay in the payments, since if there was intentional delay, he claims to be entitled to the interest for that delayed period.
In response to our appeal notice, the CPIO, AE(HQ) DCEC VIII CPWD submitted that there was no intentional delay in the payment, neither was any prejudice shown towards him. He described details of the payment made to the appellant claiming there was no outstanding payment except Rs.15 (the LTC bill), which would be paid after an application is received from the appellant. He also referred to the representation made by the appellant dt. 31.03.06 alleging that the letter was written with an intention to harass the AE (HQ) and blackmail him.
The appeal was heard on 28.7.08. The following are present:
Appellant Shri N. K. Sharma, Retd. O.S. Respondents Shri S.B. Sharma, A.E. (P) Shri D.M. Chaubey, S.E. (E) Appellant Shri N. K. Sharma was asked by us as to what specific information was awaited. He, however, was only able to reiterate the point that 3 response to his representation of 31.3.06 was unduly delayed and that this has not been sufficiently explained.
Respondents were also asked as to why the response to the first appeal was given only on 11.4.07 whereas it was due on 19.2.07, and the basis for the first issue raised in the original application not being answered at all in the initial response of 2.1.07. To this respondents were unable to respond except to say that the information was collected from different officers and provided to the first Appellate Authority.
DECISION NOTICE The appeal before us is a complaint for grievance redress, not a request for information. Appellant feels that he has been unjustly treated and full pensioners' benefits denied him . On the basis of the information that he has obtained in response to his first appeal under the RTI Act 2005 read with the response to his initial application of 2.1.07, it is open to Shri Sharma to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal to obtain administrative redress. In this matter, this Commission can be of no further use to him. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, with the following qualification.
In relation to costs, we find that although a response has gone to the initial application dated 1.12.06 on 2.1.07, which is within the time limit mandated u/s 7(1), the information provided in this response was incomplete. We have no substantive evidence to establish that the incomplete information was knowingly given, which has exonerated the CPIO from application of penalty u/s 20(1). However, although the complete information held by the public authority has been provided to appellant Shri Sharma by first Appellate Authority, in his order of 11.4.07, this order, as already found by us above, is overdue by two months, as per the time limit mandated for appeals u/sec. 19 sub-section (6) of the RTI Act, 2005. There is, therefore, little doubt that appellant Shri N. K. Sharma has 4 been put to considerable inconvenience and delay in pursuing his grievance redress by the late supply of information. He is, therefore, awarded costs u/s 19(8)(b) for loss suffered, of an amount of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) payable to appellant Shri Sharma by C.P.W.D. within fifteen working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice under intimation to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar of this Commission.
Announced in the hearing.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 28.7.2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 28.7.2008 5