Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Samarendra Nath Mukherjee vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited. on 31 July, 2019

                                  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/NCCLD/A/2018/115507

Samarendra Nath Mukherjee                                    ... अपीलकताग/Appellant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


CPIO, Bharat Coking Coal Limited                             ...प्रनतवािी /Respondent


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 13.11.2017             FA       : 04.01.2018         SA :06.03.2018

CPIO : 02.02.2018            FAO : Not on Record           Hearing : 30.07.2019


                                      ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad seeking information regarding the basis of drastic reduction in the PRP Amount for the FY 2015-16 .

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that he was dissatisfied by the response provided to him. He also submitted that the nature of job was changed and no complaint was made against him. Hence he Page 1 of 4 desired to know the basis of drastic reduction in PRP amount in the year 2015-16 despite unblemished record of service.

Hearing:

3. The appellant Shri Samarendra Nath Mukherjee attended the hearing through video conferencing. The CPIO, Shri M. Birua, Chief Manager (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad was also present through video conferencing.

4. The appellant submitted his written submissions dated 23.07.2019 and the same has been taken on record.

5. The appellant submitted that the RTI application was not responded to his satisfaction since his grievance regarding the reasons for drastic reduction in the PRP amount for the FY 2015-16 was not redressed, till date.

6. The CPIO at the outset admitted that there was a delay in replying to the RTI application. He submitted that subsequent to the hearing before the FAA, the GM (P-EE), BCCL, HQ vide letter dated 02.02.2018 had provided a response regarding the reason behind the drastic reduction in the PRP amount of the appellant for the FY 2015-2016 which answered the query of the appellant.

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submission of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that due information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. In this context the Commission notes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.; Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011; date of judgment 09.08.2011 had observed as under:

Page 2 of 4
"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority........"
"Section 3 Provides for right to information and reads thus: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information." This Section makes it clear that the RTI Act gives a right to a citizen to only access information, but not seek any consequential relief based on such information."

8. The Commission also observes that the response was not provided within the time period stipulated under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the Commission takes a lenient view in the matter and counsels the CPIO to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur.

9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

10. 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 31.07.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानित सत्यानपत प्रनत) S.S.Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) Page 3 of 4 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:

1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, E.E. Department, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad- 826005
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, E.E. Department, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad- 826005
3. Shri Samarendra Nath Mukherjee, Page 4 of 4