Central Information Commission
Vikrant Kumar vs Dredging Corporation Of India Limited, ... on 7 January, 2022
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/DCOIL/C/2020/681051
Vikrant Kumar ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dredging Corporation Of India
Limited, RTI Cell, ''Dredge
House", HB Colony Main Road,
Seethammadhara,
Visakhapatnam-530022. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/01/2022
Date of Decision : 06/01/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 02/06/2020
CPIO replied on : 16/06/2020
First appeal filed on : Nil
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 02.06.2020 seeking the following information:-
"I, Vikrant Kumar B No 973), an ex- employee of DCIL, compelled to file this RTI application for the reason that my outstanding NPS (PRAN 1 111101582592) has not been settled by DCIL even after lapse of one and half year and there exist a deliberate dilly-dallying approach in settling claims, by the responsible person handling the final claims of Ex employees of DCI. Therefore, I desire to seek the following information related to my NPS matter under RTI Act;
1. Name & designation of the responsible officer handling my NPS claim.
2. Name & designation of the supervisory authority looking after financial settlement of NPS for ex employees of DCI.
3. Name, designation & address of Grievance Redressal authority in DCIL.
4. What is the maximum Number of days required to settled an NPS claim of resigned employee as per PFRDA rules or similar set of rules in DCIL.
5. What is My NPS amount due from DCIL along with monthly breakup sheet?
6. Had it been deposited in due time, i would have availed the monetary appreciation during this one and half years until today (delay period). So the 6th information I wish to seek is - Is there any Loss of monetary value/ unit to me owing to non deposit of my Nps amount by DCIL till date. Kindly substantiate with documentary evidence if you answer is NO.
The CPIO replied to the complainant on 16.06.2020 stating as follows:-
"It is bring your kind notice that we have remitted the NPS amount to your NPS account (Karvy) on 15th May 2020, But the NPS account with karvy was closed and the amount has been returned by M/s Karvy NPS on 19th May 2020, the same was informed to your good selves.
As per your request (E mail dated : 04-06-2020 we have prepared DE. in favour of "Indian Statistical Institute" Payble at Kolkata and the same has been forwarded to Pay and Accounts Officer, NPS, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata on 12-06-2020 and concerned mail has been forwarded to you on Email dated --15- 06-2020)."
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on the ground of non-receipt of complete information except at point no. 5 of RTI Application.
2Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present. (Remained unavailable for audio-conference hearing despite receipt of prior intimation in this regard from the Registry attached with this bench.) Respondent: D. Subbarao, Chief Account Officer & PIO- F&A present through audio-conference.
The PIO submitted that timely response has already been provided to the Complainant. Further, with regards to Complainant's grievance regarding non- settlement of his outstanding NPS clam, he apprised the Commission that the issue has also been settled on 04.06.2020 as per the norms.
Decision The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the PIO as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Complainant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Further, the Commission notes upon a close scrutiny of the contents of RTI Application that the details of officers as sought by the Complainant at points no. 1- 3 is squarely hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act and also the queries raised by him at points no. 4 & 6 do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act per se as he has sought clarification/explanation from the PIO based on speculation. Moreover, the Complainant did not avail the opportunity to plead his case or contest CPIO's submission despite receipt of prior intimation of hearing from the Registry attached with this bench.
Having observed as above, no further action is warranted in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 4