Central Information Commission
Mr.Saroj Kumar Mishra vs National Aluminium Company Ltd. on 25 April, 2012
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001760
Dated: 25.04.2012
Name of Appellant : Shri Saroj Kumar Mishra
Name of Respondent : National Aluminium Company Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar
Date of Hearing : 17.04.2012
ORDER
Shri Saroj Kumar Mishra, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 3.6.2011 before the Commission against the respondent National Aluminium Company Ltd. (NALCO), Bhubaneswar for denial of information on Point No. C, D(ii) and F in reply to his RTI-application dated 16.3.2011. The matter came up for hearing on 17.04.2012 through videoconferencing. The appellant was present and the respondent were represented Shri K.N. Ravindran, Company Secretary & CPIO and Shri P.M. Rao at NIC Videoconferencing Facility Centre, Angul and Bhubaneswar respectively. .
2. The appellant had filed an application dated 16.3.2011 under the RTI Act in which he sought information on the following six queries - "(A) Please provide the name and designation of officer who has acted as Reviewing Officer in appellant's AAR 2009-10; (B) Please provide the comments mentioned in Form C1 and C2 of applicant's AAR 2009-10; (C) Please provide a certified copy of applicant's AAR 2009-10 from cover to cover; D(i) whether any modalities or formulae for payment of PRP (Performance Linked Pay - a variable pay) to 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001760 executives (applicant included) has been approved by Competent Authority of NALCO. If yes, a copy of it may kindly be provided; (ii) Further, a copy of up to date processing including all referred documents made in this regard may also be provided; (E) Please provide a certified copy of complete and up to date processing made after maoists' demand for money at Project Office, Rajamundry in which applicant has submitted his views on 10.11.2010; and (F) Please also provide opportunity for inspection of applicant's AAR 2009-10 (query-C) and the pages from which information is furnished to query-B. Applicant desires to avail the opportunity of inspection after receipt of information to above queries". The CPIO vide his letter dated 16.4.2011 denied certified copy of his AAR 2009-10 u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act as sought by the appellant at Point (C) of his RTI application and on Point (D) regarding payment of Performance Linked pay to extractives, the appellant was informed that since the matter was under
examination, any sharing of information at this stage will act as a hindrance to the process. On remaining points requisite information was provided to the appellant.
3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first-appeal on 17.5.2011 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order dated 21.5.2011 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
4. During the hearing the respondent submit that in response to appellant's RTI application dated 28.10.2010, preceding to the instant RTI application dated 16.3.2011, the entries to his AAR 2009-10 for which the appellant has made the instant appeal, had already been communicated to him in line with full bench decision of the Commission. The appellant was allowed to inspect the documents provided on 26.4.2011 at 11.00 am, however he did not turn up for the inspection. Regarding Performance Related Pay (PRP) forms the variable part of the pay revision package in respect of executives of CPSEs on IDA pattern of scales as envisaged in the guidelines issued by Department of Public Enterprises. NALCO has implemented the fixed pay part of the pay revision 3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001760 package as per the Presidential Directives issued in this regard. As regards payment of PRP issues brought out by the Officer Associations are being discussed with them, based on the outcome of which further action in the matter would be taken in due course of time. Now the decision regarding PRP has been communicated the appellant vide letter dated 12.4.2012.
5. Having heard the submissions of the parties, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide certified copies of appellant's AAR-2009-10, if not already provided , as appellant's own AAR is disclosable information as held by the Commission vide its various orders. As far as the decision regarding PRP is concerned, the CPIO will provide information, which is applicable in the case of appellant. The CPIO is directed to comply with the directions of the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order.
The matter is disposed of with the above directions.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri Saroj Kumar Mishra, Quarter No. C-236, NALCO Nagar, Angul-759145 (Orissa) The CPIO, National Aluminium Company Ltd., NALCO Bhavan, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751013.
The First Appellate Authority, National Aluminium Company Ltd., 4 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001760 NALCO Bhavan, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751013.