Central Information Commission
Bani Kumar Sinha vs Indian Institute Of Management, ... on 8 October, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/IIMKO/A/2019/104416
In the matter of:
Bani Kumar Sinha
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Indian Institute of Management Kolkata(IIM),
P O Joka, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata- 700104
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 27/09/2018 CPIO replied on : 31/10/2018 First appeal filed on : 20/11/2018
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appealdated : 25/01/2019 Date of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Date of Decision : 07/10/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over phone.
Respondent: Shri Animesh Chandra Banerjee, Manager-Personnel & PIO, heard over phone.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information with reference to the order of the Government of India (GoI) dated 29th May 1990 on the revised scales of pay for IIM Calcutta faculty members after the 4th pay commission and the prescribed option form given by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) in that respect:
1. (a) Whether the said order of the Gol was adopted in toto by the Board of Governors (BoG) of IIM Calcutta without any modification.1
(b) Whether the said revised scales of pay came as a single package along with all associated benefits together and without giving any scope to individual faculty members towards picking & choosing different benefits across the then existing pay package and the newly proposed package.
(c)Whether the employee superseded his/her old options, if he/she opted for the revised pay package through the new option form.
(d) Provide the list of faculty members who opted for the said revised pay package.
(e) and (f) - And other related information.
2. Provide relevant information / documents with regard to employees' pension at IIM Calcutta.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the relevant information.
Submissions made by Appellantand Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the CPIO had failed to provide the relevant information to him.He further submitted that all the information that he has sought is related to the implementation process as the same was not clear even to the faculty members.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 31.10.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO dated 31.10.2018 was a proper reply given at a relevant time as the queries raised in the RTI application were the subject matter and issues in the Writ Petition No. 26992 (W) of 2015 filed by the faculty members against IIMC and Union of India before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. Even though the matter attained finality on 27.06.2016, whereby the petition was dismissed, however, the petitioners in the writ petition being aggrieved with the said decision appealed against the said order in Appeal MAT No. 1551 of (W) of 2016 which was pending at that time.
On a query to the CPIO as to whether the matter has attained any finality as of now, the CPIO was unable to submit anything except for stating that they are in the process of filing SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also stated 2 that since he is working from home, he does not have the relevant file with him and hence is not aware of the present status of this case and after the notice of hearing was served to him, he did not have enough time to check the records and coordinate with other officers who were aware of the issue. He prayed that he may be given 15 days to provide the relevant information to the appellant.
Be that as it may, since no final reply was given to the appellant on the points raised by him, the CPIO is directed to provide a focussed and complete point wise reply to the appellant and as requested by the CPIO, a period of 15 days is given to him to provide the requisite information to the appellant. The CPIO should note that all the points are to be answered separately.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide complete information to the appellant in a point-wise manner as per the discussions held during the hearing. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of issue of this order under intimation to the Commission.The CPIO is also advised to come prepared for the hearings in future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna(वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णतस या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3