Central Information Commission
Neeti Dwivedi vs Gail (India) Limited on 21 August, 2023
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/GAILD/A/2022/120525
Smt. Neeti Dwivedi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
GAIL (India) Limited, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 18.07.2023
Date of Decision : 21.08.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.11.2021
PIO replied on : 30.12.2021
First Appeal filed on : 08.03.2022
First Appellate Order on : 30.03.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 28.04.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.11.2021 seeking information relating to Lt. Anita Dwivedi who was employed with GAIL India Ltd.:-
1. Date of joining the Service with GAIL India Limited
2. Her pay scale under the present designation.
3. Her salary slips of the last three years during her employment.
4. Her Bank Account details in which her salary was transferred.
5. Facilities extended to her during the course of employment in terms of perks, residence, allowance etc. over and above her salary.
Etc. The CPIO& DGM (HR-Legal), GAIL (India) Ltd vide letter dated 30.12.2021 furnished the point wise information/comments as received from HR Department, GAIL (India) Ltd., Noida.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.03.2022. The FAA/Executive Director (HR& Law), GAIL (India) Ltd. vide order dated 30.03.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Page 1 of 3Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the CPIO, Gail Ltd vide letter dated 11.07.2023 the relevant extract of which are as under:
Vide his RTI request (GAIL RTI Dy.No.GAIL/ND/RTI/Neeti Dwivedi/6768/2021 dtd. 27.11.2021, the applicant has sought miscellaneous information related to Ms. Anita Dwivedi (deceased GAIL employee). According, as per the provisions of the RTI Statute, applicant was denied information as the same was personal/third party related and stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005.
However, w.r.t. Pt. No.2 of Application, it is to inform that Smt. Anita Dwivedi, Ex-Sr. Manager(OL) was drawing salary under pay scale of Rs. 80,000-2,20,000/- with VDA:Rs.14,947/-. Besides, w.r.t. Pt. No. 9, it has already been informed to the applicant that Smt. Anita Dwivedi's Provident Fund/Gratuity were released as per the nomination submitted by her.
The Appellant's representative Shri Maneesh Kumar participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that Smt Anita Dwivedi, a GAIL employee was the maternal aunt of the Appellant who is a class II legal heir after the demise of Smt Anita Dwivedi who had died intestate. The Appellant had requested for crucial information regarding the employment and other benefits granted to Smt Anita Dwivedi during her course of employment with GAIL. However, unfortunately the information was denied in a mechanical manner despite submission of specific annexures showing the family tree. The Appellant has a strong apprehension that the assets of the deceased aunt for which she is seeking information could be sold/ diverted, depriving her of her rights, title and interest in the property. During the hearing, the Appellant relied on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi vs Usha Devi, 1984 SCR (1) 992 decided on 06.12.1983 and the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Arun Kumar Singh vs Jaya Singh and Ors Civil Revision No 38/2021 wherein it was held that a nominee is only a trustee of the property and is liable to hand it over to the legal heirs and that nomination would not confer beneficial interest and it is a mere authorisation to claim the amount which can be claimed by the legal heirs in accordance with law of succession. Shri Maneesh Kumar also relied upon a Surviving Member Certificate No 90660000040184 issued by the District Magistrate, Mayur Vihar, East District, Delhi wherein the names of the Appellant along with Smt Ritu Ranganathan; Smt Shruti Dwivedi; Shri Akshay Dwivedi and Shri Rakesh Dwivedi were listed as a legal heir of Smt Aruna Dwivedi, D/o H P Dwivedi. The father's name in the death certificate of Smt Anita Dwivedi was also listed as Shri Harihar Prasad Dwivedi which established that Smt Aruna Dwivedi (mother of Appellant) and Smt Anita Dwivedi (deceased employee of GAIL) were biological sisters.
Page 2 of 3The Respondent represented by Shri Kompal Bali, Link CPIO participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that the information regarding the pay scale and VDA of Smt Anita Dwivedi was provided to the Appellant. The Appellant was also informed that the PF dues of Smt Dwivedi were released to the nominee appointed by her. The remaining information was denied being third party personal information. Shri Bali acknowledged that a family tree was enclosed by the Appellant with her RTI application but the same did not establish her locus standi as a legal heir of Smt Anita Dwivedi.
Decision In the light of the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. The issue for consideration in the instant matter before this Commission is whether the Appellant is a third party u/s 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 vis a vis' the information pertaining to Late Smt Anita Dwivedi and not whether a nominee possesses any beneficial interest in property. The Appellant with her Second Appeal has not filed any valid proof such as Succession Certificate of her being a Class I or Class II Legal Heir. The Surviving Member Certificate enclosed by the Appellant pertains to her mother Smt Aruna Dwivedi and not Smt Anita Dwivedi. In the judgement cited by the Appellant i.e., Arun Kumar Singh vs Jaya Singh and Ors Civil Revision No 38/2021, the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh had observed that the legal heir i.e., the wife of the deceased policy holder had filed an application to issue a Succession Certificate u/s 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which was partly allowed in her favour by the trial court whereas in the present instance no such communication has been made to the Commission by the Appellant. In view of the above, the Commission is not inclined to further intervene in the instant matter. The jurisdiction of the Commission is only limited to ascertaining if disclosure of information is permissible as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 hence the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum for redressal of her grievance and declaring her as a legal heir.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा)
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535
Page 3 of 3