Central Information Commission
S Satyanarayana vs Dredging Corporation Of India Limited, ... on 16 July, 2019
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DCOIL/A/2018/114704/SD
S. Satyanarayana .... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dredging Corporation of India Ltd,
"Dredge House", Port Area,
Visakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh-530001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 17/11/2017
CPIO replied on : 19/12/2017
First appeal filed on : 06/01/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 31/01/2018
Second Appeal dated : 26/02/2018
Date of Hearing : 11/07/2019
Date of Decision : 11/07/2019
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information regarding his basic pay, number of days of Privilege Leave (PL) and Half Pay Leave (HPL) available in his credit as on date of relief i.e. 31.07.2010, gross amount worked out towards encashment of PL & HPL, period for which his pension was calculated, etc. Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:1
The following were present: -
Appellant: Represented by R Venkateswara Rao through VC.
Respondent: Capt.P.M. Saravanan, Head of Deptt. (HR) & CPIO, Dredging Corporation of India Ltd, "Dredge House", Port Area, Visakhapatnam present through VC.
At the outset, Commission remarked that information sought in the RTI Application is not strictly as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act and it requires deduction of the CPIO from Appellant's service records as the data has been sought in a cumbersome manner.
Rep. of Appellant stated that the RTI Application has been framed as per Appellant's understanding of the Act. Upon Commission's inquiry regarding the basic premise of the RTI Application, Rep. of Appellant stated that being a retired employee of DCIL, Appellant has every right to ask for reasons for the notice of recovery of overpaid emoluments issued to him after 10 years of his retirement.
CPIO at this juncture interjected to state that a number of retired employees are affected by the averred recovery order and approx. 50 identical RTI Applications have been filed by the employees till date.
Decision Commission observes that the Appellant has not been able to frame the RTI Application to suit his actual requirement; however, the issue raised by him in the Second Appeal as well as clarified by his representative during the hearing concerns a larger community of similarly placed retired employees of DCIL. Accordingly, in the letter and spirit of RTI Act, Commission takes an empathetic view in the matter and directs the CPIO to provide all relevant and available record [letter/correspondence/file noting(s)] to the Appellant wherein the proposal and the decision to recover overpaid emoluments has been processed. CPIO shall note that this information will be provided in line with the provision of Section 4(1)(d) of RTI Act which prescribes as under:
"4. (1) Every public authority shall--2
File No: CIC/DCOIL/A/2018/114704/SD
d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons."
The aforesaid information shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काशिस हा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) Haro Prasad Sen Dy. Registrar 011-26106140/ [email protected] हरो सादसेन,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 3