Central Information Commission
Ompal Singh vs The National Small Industries ... on 2 July, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
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/NSICL/A/2024/622513
Shri Ompal Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, The National Small Industries Corporation ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ltd.
Date of Hearing : 30.06.2025
Date of Decision : 30.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.01.2024
PIO replied on : 12.02.2024
First Appeal filed on : 05.03.2024
First Appellate Order on : 03.04.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 29.05.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"1-1 have worked in NSIC-NTSC Aligarh during the period March -2007 to June- 2023 in different time intervals so please provide the scanned copies of payment noting sheet of that payment which is done to out sourcing staff and guest faculties of NSIC Aligarh for the time period of March-2007 to June 2023 total 196 months at my mail id or at RTI account.
2- Please provide the scanned copies of attendance register of guest faculties and out sourcing staff of NSIC Aligarh for the time period of March 2007 to June 2023 3-Is there any rules are made to appoint the outsourcing staff and guest faculties related to their services, holidays and minimum wages? Because first employer is equally responsible like second employer. 4-If the answer of question no. 3 is yes then please send me the rules and regulations made by NSIC 5-1 was fired from my job on date 12-06-2023 without any reason and without any previous notice and I was informed to Mr. DGM NSIC Aligarh through email on date 25-06-2023.Please tell me what action taken by NSIC Aligarh against that complaint."Page 1 of 3
The CPIO, vide letter dated 12.02.2024 replied as under:-
"Reply:- Reply to Para 1:-Your duration of engagement may be confirmed by your employer (i.e. concerned manpower agency) prior to February 14, 2023. However you were engaged by NTSC, Aligarh as temporary Guest Faculty from February 15, 2023 to June 09, 2023. Further, the information sought by you cannot be shared as the same is not in public interest.
Reply to Para 2:- Information cannot be shared as the information sought is not in public interest.
Reply to Para 3:-The Centre is following the prevailing norms/rules of the Corporation while engaging of all the temporary guest faculties/out sourced manpower through manpower agency. Also no complaint/grievance received from you during your engagement as temporary Guest Faculty or outsourced staff through agency, thereby confirming your full satisfaction in this regard. Reply to Para 4:-Please see the reply given to point no. 3 above. Further, no rules/norms of the Corporation can now be shared with you as you are no longer engaged with the Corporation in any manner. Moreover, you are fully aware of the same as no query was raised by you during your engagement. Reply to Para 5:-When discussed the query with DGM/Centre Head, NTSC, Aligarh he has informed that no such mail has been received by him."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.03.2024. The FAA, vide order dated 03.04.2024 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Vivek Mangal - CPIO, Chief Manager, the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. was present through video conference during hearing.
Both parties reiterated their respective contentions and it transpired that the Appellant who had been a temporary guest faculty with the Respondent was engaged from time to time, on the basis of requirement, through a manpower agency. The Respondent stated that information available on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act. The Appellant was not satisfied with the reply since neither duration of his service nor payment made to him had been correctly stated by the Respondent.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had furnished information available on records, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, in terms of the provisions of the Act, in response to the Appellant's queries. However, considering the averments of the parties, the CPIO is directed to send the Appellant a revised reply solely comprising of duration of his service with the Respondent as guest lecturer and payment made to him for the duration of his service, within four Page 2 of 3 weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report in this regard within a week of thereafter before the Commission.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) 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)