Central Information Commission
K L Sarkar vs Edcil (India) Limited on 17 November, 2021
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/EDCIL/A/2021/119774
K L Sarkar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
EDCIL India Limited, RTI Cell,
EDCIL Bhawan, Plot No. - 18A,
Sector-16A, Noida - 201301. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15/11/2021
Date of Decision : 15/11/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01/12/2020
CPIO replied on : 15/02/2021
First appeal filed on : 08/03/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 08/04/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07/05/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.12.2020 seeking the following information;1
1. For eligibility of Gratuity of br. K.L.Sarkar Ex-ED(CP) total number of expert / legal opinion taken/ sought by EdCIL, it may be from same expert or different experts.
2. Provide the hierarchy of officials through which the notes was/were processed to get the approval for seeking expert / legal opinion (from initiating official to approving) for the serial no.1.
3. After getting the approval on file, the official( designation) communicated to the expert for getting the opinion mentioning the dates of communication and the date the opinion received by EdCIL from the experts( for all opinions/advices).
4. Provide Copy of the notes (if name of the expert mentioned in the note same can be hide)
5. Comments/ opinions of all legal experts regarding the above case.
Dr. Sarkar worked in EdCIL as Director(CP) from 14.6.2013 to 13.09.15 and his employee number was 312 and again he worked as Executive Director(CP) from 18.05.2016 to 30.04.20 and his employee number was 363. As per EdCIL policy its Gratuity fund is managing by LIC Under RTI 2005, I want to know:
1. Total amount deposited against Employee No. was 312 by EdCIL to LIC along with year wise contribution.
2. Total amount deposited against Employee No. was 363 by EdCIL to LIC along with year wise contribution.
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 15.02.2021 stating as follows:-
Point No. 1:- One Legal Opinion taken from Advocate. Point No. 2:- DGM (HR & Admn.) and GM (HR & Admn.) Point No. 3:- The dates are 05.03.2020 and 28.07.2020. Point No. 4:- The copy/content of the note is kept under fiduciary relationship and hence exempted under section 8.1(e) under RTI Act. Point No. 5:- The conclusion of legal opinion already provided vide letter No. RTI/455/2020-HR dated 28.10.2020.
Point No. 6 & 7:- As per the information provided by Finance Department "No individual contribution is done in the name of the employee."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.03.2021. FAA's order dated 08.04.2021 advised the PIO to provide the relevant information at Point No. 4 of the RTI application (if any) preferably within 15 days time to the applicant.2
In compliance of FAA's order, CPIO vide letter dated 22.4.2021 furnished relevant extracts of legal opinion with respect to gratuity matter of the Appellant against point no. 4.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of wrong and incomplete information received from the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Sunil Kumar Mathur, Deputy General Manager (HR & Admin) CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that the reply and information given to him by the CPIO was incorrect and misleading. He further contested that the Respondent is a chronic defaulter in giving timely response to the RTI Application regarding which the Appellant has brought attention of the bench towards certain orders of CIC.
The CPIO submitted that reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant as is evinced from letters dated 15.02.2020 and 22.04.2021. He further tendered his unconditional regret for the delay in reply and attributed the reason for the same owing to challenging circumstances due to nationwide lockdown period due to COVID pandemic.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset condones the delay in giving timely reply due to the extraordinary circumstances caused on account of the COVID pandemic in the immediate aftermath of the first nation-wide lockdown.
Further, the Commission upon perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant on each point of RTI Application as per the provisions of RTI Act, leaving behind no scope of further intervention in the matter.3
Also, the issue raised by the Appellant challenging the veracity of information provided by the CPIO is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the ambit of RTI Act.
Now, to allay the apprehension of the Appellant, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide a copy of all his replies along with enclosures in response to instant RTI Application free of cost to the Appellant through email and speed post. The said direction shall be complied by the CPIO within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4