Central Information Commission
B. V. Phaneendra Babu vs Ircon International Limited on 19 June, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IRCON/A/2017/172607
B.V. Phaneendra Babu ... अपीलकत/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/o. Railways, IRCON ... ितवादी /Respondent
International Limited, District
Center, Saket, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 31.05.2017 FA : 04.08.2017 SA : 18.10.2017
CPIO : 23.06.2017 FAO : 22.08.2017 Hearing : 18.06.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o. Railways, IRCON International Limited, Saket seeking information on 24 points, including, inter-alia: (i) Whether the recommendation of 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) has been implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2016 for all the CDA deputationist of Indian Railways employees without any discrimination on the basis of their place of posting including Malaysia. lf not, the copy of the Management noting or relevant rule be provided which states otherwise in contrary to the Parliamentary legislation Page 1 of 7 & Gazette Notification on 7th CPC; and (ii) Whether 7th CPC has been implemented in distort and arbitrary ways for some of the CDA deputationist employees of Indian Railways in Malaysia so far deductions of PF is concerned w.e.f. 01.01.2016. lf yes, the copy of the noting and decision of IRCON Management be provided for this gross discrimination and violation of recommendation and the Parliamentary legislation on 7th CPC, etc.
2. Being aggrieved with the response given by the CPIO/FAA, the appellant filed a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 before the Commission on the ground that incomplete and incorrect information has been provided to him. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete information to him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant participated in the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri Davendra, JGM, Ms. Swati Ved, DGM/HRM, Shri P.V. Likhar, DM/HRM, Shri Tejram Hari, AM/HRM, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, JGM and Shri P. Mahesh Kumar, DGM were present in person.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 18.06.2019 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that incomplete and incorrect information has been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 31.05.2017.
6. The respondent submitted that complete point-wise reply/information has been provided to the appellant as per his RTI application dated 31.05.2017. The reply was seen during the hearing.
7. The RTI application of the appellant was discussed point-wise during the hearing.
Page 2 of 7Decision:
8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant in most of his queries has sought explanation, opinion, advice from the CPIO viz. on point no. 7 which stated as:
"7. It has been learnt that IRCON Management has credited the PF arrears & PF subscription on the basis of some representation received from the Malaysia Project office. The copy of the noting of HR/Management be provided which led to the significant delay in crediting statutory PF w.e.f. 01.01.2016 for the deputationist employees in Malaysia whereas same was effected long before for the Railway deputationist working in lndia. The reason for discriminating among same set of CDA employees on the basis of place of posting be provided along with the relevant para/clause of 7thCPC which specifically discriminates", etc.
9. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"Page 3 of 7
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
Page 4 of 77. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to Page 5 of 7 communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
10. After perusal of records, the Commission further observed that appropriate information on point no. 3 read with point no. 5 and information on point nos. 7 and 24 has not been provided to the appellant. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide information to the appellant on point no. 3 read with point no. 5 related to copy of management decision for officers working on deputation. The respondent is further directed to give information to the appellant on point no. 7 regarding decision of the management relating to PF contribution of deputationist (as available in their records) and also directed to provide information on point no. 24 of the RTI application, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent is further directed to send a copy of their written submissions dated 18.06.2019 to the appellant along with compliance of this order.
11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 18.06.2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
(011-26105682)
Page 6 of 7
Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o. Railways, IRCON International Limited, CPIO & GM (Mech.), Regd. Office:
Plot No. C-4, District Center, Saket, New Delhi- 110017
2. Shri B.V. Phaneendra Babu Page 7 of 7