Central Information Commission
Deepak Kumar Jain vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 9 October, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NPCOI/A/2023/603444
Shri Deepak Kumar Jain ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Nuclear Power Corporation of India ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.10.2024
Date of Decision : 04.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.11.2022
PIO replied on : 30.11.2022
First Appeal filed on : 01.12.2022
First Appellate Order on : NA
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 19.01.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.22.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. How many SA promoted scientific assistant-C to scientific assistant-D in- between the period 2009 to 2013 & 2010 to 2014 with very good CR. (Kindly provide information on a grading basis only as requested)
2. How many SA promoted scientific assistant-C to scientific assistant-D in- between the period 2009 to 2012 & 2010 to 2013 with Outstanding CR. (Kindly provide information on a grading basis only as requested)
3. As per order no. NPCIL/HRP/2(201)1/2012/014 (It is mentioned in this order that the remaining year's CR can be screened in for promotion to the next higher grade so kindly clarify What action did by HR under my application which I submitted to HR).
4. As per order no NPCIL/HRP/2(115)/2012/328 29/06/2012 2010-2011 CR grading changed good to very good. I give an application on account of this order so kindly tell me What action did by HR with full details.
5. What action did by HR under my application, which I gave on 01 Feb 2019.
6. What action did by HR under my application, which I gave on 08 July 2022.
7. I gave a Reply against order no RR Site/HR/Grievance/2022/ establishment/5133 to HR so Kindly provide HR Reply after my reply with full details. Etc."Page 1 of 3
The CPIO vide letter dated 30.11.2022 furnished a point wise reply as under:
Point No Unit Response to request
1. GHAVP In this regard, it is informed that information sought
is 'NII'.
KKNPP In this regard, it is informed that in MAPS one employee was promoted from SA/C to SA/D in between 2009 to 2013 and 5 (five) employees were promoted in between 200.10 to 2014 with Very Good CR.
KGS 1-4 In this regard, it is informed that information sought by you is pertaining to last more than 10 years, vast and are not readily available. Hence, you are requested to visit CPIO Office, Kaiga Generating Station, Karwar, Uttar Karnataka on a mutually agreed convenient date for inspection of documents at your own cost.
2. GHAVP In this regard, it is informed that information sought is 'Nil'.
KKNPP In this regard, it is informed that in MAPS no employee was promoted from SA/C to SA/D in between 2009 to 2013 and 8 (eight) employees were promoted in between 20.10 to 2013 with Outstanding CR.
KGS 1-4 In this regard, it is informed that you may please refer response given by KGS 1-4 in point no.1 above. With reference to point no.1 & 2, information sought is yet to be received from Mumbai- HQ and various sites of NPCIL i.e. KAPS, NAPS, MAPS, TMS 1-4 and would be provided as soon as it is received. With reference to point no. 1 to 14, information sought is yet to be received from Rawatbhata Rajasthan Site (RRS) and would be provided as soon as it is received.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.12.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 30.09.2024 has been received from the CPIO, NPCL reiterating the above facts and adding that a final detailed reply was sent by the PIO on 01.03.2023, followed by the FAA's order dated 02.03.2023. Written submission dated 30.09.2024 has been received from the Appellant stating that he is dissatisfied with the incomplete response. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Gupta - CPIO was present through video conference during hearing.
Respondent present during hearing contended that queries raised by the Appellant had been duly responded with information available on record, in terms of the RTI Act.Page 2 of 3
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case and averments of the Respondent present for hearing, indicate that information as available on record with the public authority, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly furnished by the Respondent public authority to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. Since appropriate response has been furnished by the Respondent and the Appellant has not chosen not to buttress the matter, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)