Central Information Commission
Mrjagdish Kumar Singh vs Airport Authority Of India on 1 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 06, Club Building, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067. Tel: 011 - 26182597, 26182598
Appeal No.:CIC/YA/A/2015/000309/BJ
Appellant : Mr. Jagdish Kumar Singh
TypeIII, AF494, CPWD Quarter,
Sector1, Vaishakhi, Kolkata 700064
Respondent : CPIO
Airports Authority of India
Operational Office
Rangpuri, Gurgaon Road,
New Delhi - 110003.
Date of Hearing : 01/06/2016
Date of Decision : 01/06/2016
Date of filing of RTI application 31.03.2014
CPIO's response 07.05.2014
Date of filing the First appeal 11.07.2014
First Appellate Authority's response 08.10.2014
Date of filing second appeal before the Commission 29.01.2015
O R D E R
FACTS:
The appellant sought information on 04 points pertaining to status of his letter dated 27.03.2012 to RED (NR), the name of the office dealing with it, whether guidelines of DPE are followed in AAI or not, status of his PF form, his balance in PF card, reasons behind delay in PF settlement and also status of his GSLIS form etc. Point-wise reply was furnished to him vide letter dated 07/05/2014. For points 03 and 04, the queries were referred to CPF section and SM Pension respectively. Dissatisfied with the information he preferred appeal on 11/07/2014 before the FAA. The FAA, in its order, stated Page 1 of 3 that the desired information had already been provided to the appellant vide letters dated 05/05/2014 and 1920/05/2014. (These letters were produced through written submissions, during the hearing.) HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Jagdish Kumar Singh (M:9163863006) through VC; Respondent: Mr. Tarsem Lal, AGM(HR)(M:9650975721) and Mr. A. P. Sharma, Manager(HR) (M:9414060535);
The appellant stated that he had joined the Airport Authority of India as Sr. Assistant (Electronics) on 28/02/2011 and resigned on 18/02/2012 from Amritsar Airport. He had requested RED(NR) regarding release of Bond amount of Rs. 100000/(one lakh) and had sent reminders also. He particularly laid emphasis on DPE Guidelines and sought details as to whether the respondent organization follows these guidelines or not.
The representatives of the respondent stated that CPIO had furnished the information to the appellant on 05/05/2014 along with some enclosures. Subsequently, a reply dated 08/10/2014 had also been sent in response to the first appeal with all necessary enclosures. It was argued that the appellant had furnished a bond at the time of appointment which was forfeited as he had resigned from service before the expiry of two years. The terms and conditions of the bond were applicable to him as he was the executor of the bond. The bond amount was forfeited in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said bond, as also the laid down criteria followed in such appointments. The appellant, however, apprehended that the DPE guidelines were not being followed by the respondents. In reply the respondents reaffirmed their position as stated above.
DECISION:
On perusal of the records available with the Commission, as also the submissions made by the both the parties, it is quite clear that the information desired by the appellant had been furnished to him. The RTI application essentially pertains to the matter of interpretation of the DPE guidelines and its applicability to the respondent organization which is outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no further interference of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeal stands disposed accordingly.Page 2 of 3
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 3