Central Information Commission
Sumit Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 21 November, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/622960
Sumit Singh ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Oil Corporation
Limited, Marketing Division,
Southern Region, RTI Cell,
lndian Oil Bhavan, 139,
Uthamar Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai-600034, Tamilnadu ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17/11/2022
Date of Decision : 17/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 16/02/2021
CPIO replied on : 12/03/2021
First appeal filed on : 12/03/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 01/04/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 16.02.2021 seeking the following information:
1. "On what basis only I have been considered as on unauthorised absence from 18 may onwards while the unlock 01 started from 7 June. On the 1 contrary for every other employee other than me got their leave authorised for the whole lock down period. Is it fair to treat partially two different people within the same organization even after pointing this issue on regular basis from my side. Does the organisation think that I should have reached to Bangalore from Patna on foot. If yes then why only me why not every other employee of this organisation who got stuck like me. Please state clearly the reasons for this partiality so that I can proceed further to solve this issue asap.
2. What is the status of my pending Coffs and 26 ELs. Did my 26 ELs get compensated for the unauthorized period. As per my last RTI query reply the Coffs encashment were in pipeline but still I didn't receive the amount.
3. As per last RTI reply it was stated that I have not submitted the required documents for COVID kit reimbursement but I had already submitted all the documents with regards to it and it got misplaced by the employee who was handling it. So why am I paying for this. Should not the employee held responsible for this. If needed I will share the call recording in which the employee Mr. G Manuhar was admitting this fact. So please clear it by coordinating with the location.
4. Please send me the details of the components of the salary that were credited from May onwards.
5. What are my pending dues as of now."
The CPIO replied to the complainant on 12.03.2021 stating as under:-
Point No. 1:- "This is not a query as enumerated under the Act and can't be replied.
Point No. 2:- The status of your Els was conveyed to you vide our reply dated 24.12.2020 in response to your earlier RTI dtd. 28.11.2020. SCO has been updated in the system on 03.03.2021 and payment is to be released after processing of salary of March month.
Point No. 3:- This is not a query as enumerated under the Act and can't be replied. However, it is informed that you have not submitted the self attested copy of claim documents.
Point No. 4:-Salary slips are available to each serving employee during the period of service on an internal company platform. Though you have not specified the year, the copies of salary slips from May 2020 till your relieving are, however, annexed.
Point No. 5:-There are no pending dues from IOCL."
2Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.03.2021. FAA's order dated 01.04.2021 held as under:-
"............The information sought by the appellant in Query No. 1 of the RTI Application i.e. "on what basis only I have been considered as on unauthorized absence..." has been rightly denied by the Respondent/CPIO as it is in the nature of seeking advice/opinion, therefore, it does not fall under the definition of the information under section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Further, Respondent/CPIO is directed to provide complete information with reference to Query Nos. 2 & 3 of the RTI Application i.e. regarding status of Compensatory-offs and COVID Kit reimbursement to the appellant within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint. In the Complaint he mainly harped on his grievance in the following lines -
"....I would like to raise some concern which I am facing from past 1 year by my former employer Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( I resigned last year and got relieved on 07.09.2020).I came to my hometown on 20.03.2020 after 10 months to meet my parents who are living in Patna from Bangalore. My leaves had been already approved till 28.03.2020 and I was supposed to join my duty back on 29.03.2020 but due to nation wide lockdown I got stuck like every other person. I came to my job location (Bangalore) on June 21, 2020 and undergone 14 days home quarantine as per Government Rules and joined my duty back from July 6, 2020. In my area the local transport facilities resumed from June 8, 2020 but the place where I had been was in containment zone so as a precautionary measure I didn't travel right back after unlock 1.0.
My previous employer has approved me to be deemed on duty till 18th May,2020 only (even at that time no transport facilities were available) and after that they had put me on unauthorized absence. On the other hand my friend's leave and every other person's leave have been authorized for the whole lockdown period. Despite of requesting them several times from past one year they are ignoring my requests and I am facing discrimination on various grounds within the same organization which is treating me differently. Sir, the rule should be same for everyone. No one should be discriminated on any grounds.3
I would like to request you to take some strict actions regarding this matter and strictly tell my previous employer to approve my leaves for the whole lockdown period (i.e. till unlock 01 atleast) instead of 18th may, 2020 as they have done for every other person."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Represented by his father Vijay Kumar Singh present through video- conference.
Respondent: S. Manisekhar, GM (ER) & Rep. of CPI present through video- conference.
The Rep. of the Complainant reiterated the contents of the instant Complaint as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
In response to it, the Rep. of CPIO invited attention of the bench towards their latest written submission filed prior to hearing. For the sake of clarity, relevant extracts of it are reproduced below in verbatim-
"....The Appellant, in his Appeal dated 12.03.2021, sought information for the three queries out of the five queries asked in his RTI Original Application. It is observed that the query sought by the appellant was infact in the nature of advice or opinion which doesn't fall under the definition of information under section 2(f) of the RTI act. Since the CPIO is a public authority and is a custodian of information it's not his duty to generate information and is duty bound to provide only those information which is available in records. The CPIO is also not grievance reddresal authority and cannot entertain an application which is seems to be in its nature, a complaint.
We would also like to reiterate the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Another v. Aditya Bandopadhayay and Ors1, wherein it was decided that a public authority is 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. The CPIO is bound to provide information which is available with the records of the Public Authority...."
Decision 4 The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the contentions of the parties observes that the relief claimed in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking information per se as it is about the Complainant's resolve of bringing to fore the alleged his absence during service and also clarifications in this regard from the Respondent's organization.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO adequately suffices the queries raised in the instant RTI Application as per the provisions of RTI Act.
The Complainant 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 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 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] where in 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) Similarly, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act, reference may be had of a 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:
"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."5
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 foregoing observations, no action is warranted in the matter.
However, by taking an empathetic view in the matter, the Commission hereby advises the Complainant to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism and by making written representation on CPGRAM portal of the Respondent Authority, as clarified by the CPIO during hearing .
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 6