Central Information Commission
Manish Chandra Pathak vs Mecon Limited on 17 October, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/MECON/C/2024/105793
Shri Manish Chandra Pathak िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, MECON Limited ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.10.2024
Date of Decision : 14.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri HeeralalSamariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 04.12.2023
PIO replied on : 20.12.2023
First Appeal filed on : 22.12.2023
First Appellate Order on : 22.01.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 27.02.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 04.12.2023seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Please provide information that, it is correct that in the approval note dated 16.05.2018 in relation to fixation of my basic pay in pre-revised as well revised basic pay towards my pay protection as well as other terms and conditions of the appointment, was approved by the then CMD of MECON.
2. Further provide information that, it is correct that in the approval note dated 22.08.2023 which was ultimately approved on 08.09.2023 was approved only at Director Level and it does not have the approval of the CMD.
3. Further provide information that it is correct that during the intervening period of approval of above two notes .i.e. Subsequent to approval dated 16.05.2018 and prior to approval dated 08.09.2023 (pursuant to note dated 22.08.2023) there is/are no approval from the management/competent authority in relation to pay re-fixation or re-casting of applicant herein."
The CPIO, Sr. GM(HR)vide letter dated 20.12.2023 replied as under:-
Page 1 of 3"Point No. 1: Yes.
Point No. 2: Yes.
Point No. 3: The information requested is not clear."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 22.12.2023. The FAA, CGM(Structural)vide order dated 22.01.2024upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant:Heard through video conference Respondent: Shri Ravindra Agarwal - Sr. GM, HR was also present through video conference during hearing.
The Complainant contended that he has filed multiple RTI applications seeking information about his pay fixation. He stated that he was appointed in MECON as a lateral entrant but his pay revision/fixation was not done correctly, since the pay revision 3rd PRC was not given effect in his case. The Respondent present during hearing stated that information pertaining to the Complainant's personal records had been duly shown to him and the queries raised by him through the aforementioned RTI application were hypothetical in nature or the Applicant had sought clarification/personal opinion of the PIO, which do not form part of information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Hence he had been responded accordingly.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, it is noted that information in response to the Complainant's queries have been duly furnished to him, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, wherein the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. From the records of the case at hand and deliberation between parties, it appears that the Respondent had sent appropriate response to the Complainant, which is in consonance with the terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and did not suffer from any infirmity or lacunae. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case.
The scope and ambit of a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act has been well discussed in the judgment of theHon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner andAnother v. State of Manipur and Anr.in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:Page 2 of 3
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in theimpugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
In the given circumstances, the Commission finds that in the absence of any wilful or malafidedenial or concealment of information by the Respondent, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case. It is also made clear that dispute resolution or grievance redressal does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act, hence appropriate legal remedy may be sought for the same.
The case is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल साम रया) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) 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)