Central Information Commission
Sanjeev Kapoor vs National Thermal Power Corporation ... on 9 May, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/NTPCO/C/2017/169259
Sanjeev Kapoor ... निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, NTPC Limited, Corporate ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Centre, NTPC Bhawan, New
Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 22.06.2017 FA : NA Complaint : 26.09.2017
CPIO : No Reply FAO : NA Hearing : 03.05.2019
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), NTPC Limited, New Delhi, seeking information on two points pertaining to payment of HRA to unmarried employees of NTPC-Anta and Jaipur, including, inter-alia, (i) reasons for discrimination between the aforesaid employees and the applicant for Page 1 of 5 payment of HRA, despite the fact that all his conditions of employment and place of posting are same, and (ii) a certified copy of the Rule on the basis of which the aforesaid employees were paid HRA and provided bachelor accommodation.
2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO did not furnish any reply/information in response to his RTI aplicaation, till date. The complainant requested the Commission to impose penalty upon the CPIO, to take necessary action against him for the delay in responding to his RTI application as per Section 20 of the RTI Act and to award him compensation for the detriment suffered by him.
Hearing:
3. The complainant Shri Sanjeev Kapoor and the respondent Shri S. Nandan, Asstt. General Manager and CPIO, NTPC Ltd., Corporate Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi were present in person.
4. The complainant submitted that incorrect and delayed reply has been furnished to him by the CPIO. He further contended that one of the employees, Shri Surender Sharma, who was posted at NTPC Anta,was not married at the time of joining NTPC in 1989. He was allotted a Bachelor accomodation and was also allowed to claim HRA for his family accomodation. However, the appellant's claim for HRA has been denied consistently even when the employees referred to by him in his RTI application resided with him in the Hostel.
5. The respondent submitted that the appellant has been informed vide reply dated 05.12.2017 that Shri Surendra Sharma was married in 1989 and hence was not a bachelor in 1991 at the time of appellant's joining service in 1991. Further, Page 2 of 5 he was posted at Anta w.e.f. 17.11.2011 to 02.05.2013 and during this period, he was availing company accommodation (Bachelor) at Anta and was claiming HRA for his family accommodation in Jaipur as per the scheme. The respondent further clarified that in special cases and depending upon their eligibility, employees residing in company accommodation were allowed to claim HRA for their family accommodation. Hence, information as per the available records has been provided to the complainant. Moreover, the information sought by the complainant vide point no. 1 of his RTI application is clarificatory in nature, which does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that the complaint has in the past sought similar/identical information relating to HRA scheme of NTPC though more than 15 RTI applications which has been duly furnished to him and inspection of the relevant documents had also been provided. With respect to the delay in responding to the RTI application, the respondent explained that the CPIO had to refer to individual file of the seven employees referred to by the complainant in his RTI application in order to provide the information sought for. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, agrees with the submissions of the respondent that the information sought by the complainant vide point no. 1 of his RTI application is clarificatory in nature, which does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. However, no information was provided to him Page 3 of 5 by the respondent on point no. 2 of the RTI application regarding the HRA Rules/Scheme on the basis of which the employees referred to in the RTI application were provided Bachelor accommodation. Further, the respondent could not reasonably explain the delay of about four months in responding to the appellant's RTI application. The Commission, therefore, directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to Shri S. Nandan, CPIO, NTPC Limited, Corporate Centre, NTPC Bhawan, New Delhi for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.
7. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 06.05.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), NTPC Limited, Corporate Centre, NTPC Bhawan, Core 6, 3rd Floor, SCOPE Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), NTPC Limited, Corporate Centre, NTPC Bhawan, Core 6, 6th Floor, SCOPE Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003.
3. Shri Sanjeev Kapoor Page 5 of 5