Central Information Commission
Ajit Kumar vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 2 February, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/613637
Ajit Kumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Refineries Headquarters,
Core-2, 7, Institutional Area,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/02/2023
Date of Decision : 01/02/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 10/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 11/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 10/01/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2021 seeking the following information:
1. Please confirm my individual rating for FY 2017-18 whether it is 60 % or not?
2. Also please share the detail method for deciding my individual rating for the FY 2017-18 as per company policy.1
3. As per 3rd PRC, the CPSEs shall be empowered to decide on the ratings to be given to the executives so what is the methodology for deciding individuals performance rating of an officer working in IOC, Refinery location. I.e. how will you rated B Grade officer as Excellent or Very Good or Good / Average or Fair etc. for the cases
a) Reviewer having less than or equal to 7 same B grade officers.
b) Reviewer having more than 7 same B grade officers.
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 10.12.2021 stating as under:
"query no. 1"Officer was in 60% Individual performance rating category for payment of PRP 2017-18. Query no. 1 query nos. 2 and 3: The methodology for deciding individual's performance rating of an officer working in IOC, Refinery location for the year 2017-2018 was in line with DPE OM No. W-02/0028/2017- DPE (WC)-GL-XIII/17 dated 03.08.2017 (copy of guidelines attached as Flag -1)."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2021. FAA's order dated 10.01.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO. (to be edited) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Represented by Shailesh S Hansdan, CHRDM (I/c.) along with Saranga Bordoloi, Manager (HRD) and Mayank Deep, AM (Law) present through intra-video conference.
Shailesh, CHRDM (I/c.) invited attention of the bench towards the latest written submission of the CPIO dated 31.01.2023 wherein the CPIO apart from reiterating the averred reply and FAA's order further explained as under -
" ....Appellant in the ground of Appeal has sought hypothetical and vague information and furnishing of such information will result in disproportionately diverting the resources of the Corporation. Further, these queries being 2 hypothetical in nature, the same does not fall under the definition of information as defined under Section 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005.
xxx
2. With respect to q.no.1 of the second appeal, we are to inform that the related policy has already been provided along with the CPIO's reply. As per that policy, the methodology is applicable to all officers in Grade AO to I under the case (a) &
(b) mentioned in the RTI query.
3. With respect to q.no.2 to 4 the ground of appeal is generic in nature and no specific information is sought and as such the similar information was not sought in the RTI application. Further, ever after providing the detailed calculation sheet for the purpose of PRP along with the FAA's order, the appellant is seeking additional information such as is there any restriction for lower slab movement upto 60% slab only, not below that"; "Pl. tell the round figure of officers, tell the procedure for rounding that figure"; "Can you confirm whether the actual individual rating of below mentioned officers is correct or not?" etc. These queries are hypothetical in nature and intend to seek opinion of CPIO. Such queries do not fall under the definition of 'information' as defined under Sec 2(f) of RTI Act and hence CPIO cannot address the ground of appeal against q. nos. 2 to 4...."
The Rep. of CPIO further apprised the Commission that the Appellant was an ex- employee of IOCL who has switched to some other organization in July,2020. He has certain grievance pertaining to his PRP (performance related pay) for which he instead of approaching the administrative cell resorted to RTI channel which is not an appropriate route for redressal of his grievance.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information as much it is about the redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding performance related pay (PRP) by his erstwhile employer i.e. IOCL and in this regard he has sought clarifications from the CPIO.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO is in the spirit of RTI Act.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is 3 unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........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. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) As regarding the mandate of the RTI Act is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:4
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the above, no further action is warranted in the matter.
However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises her to pursue the matter through appropriate administrative mechanism.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the attention of the CPIO is invited to the clause 4 of the CIC's hearing notice which is as under -
"....4. All the parties may submit their written submission, if any, to the Commission at least 3 working days before the date of hearing. A copy of the same shall be served upon opposite party. If any party wishes to make online submission, the same may be sent to the Commission's link only viz., http://dsscic.nic.in/online- link-paper-compliance/add.
In view of the above said point, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of his latest written submission free of cost to the Appellant, if not provided to him at all, within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6