Central Information Commission
P. G. Mohanan vs Cochin Port Trust on 8 July, 2022
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/CPTRS/A/2021/133324 +
CIC/CPTRS/A/2021/153970
P. G. Mohanan ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Cochin Port Trust, RTI Cell,
W/Island, Cochin,
Ernakulam-682009, Kerala. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07/07/2022
Date of Decision : 07/07/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeals have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on the similar RTI Application.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30/04/2021 & 13/07/2021
CPIO replied on : 10/08/2021, 09/06/2021 & 14/09/2021
First appeal filed on : 25/06/2021 & 26/08/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 29/07/2021 & 06/10/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/08/2021 & 11/12/2021
CIC/CPTRS/A/2021/133324
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.04.2021 seeking the following information:
"(A) Please give photocopy of the relevant portion of the Act/Rules etc., under which the Cochin Port Trust sanctioned gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to Sri. Goutam Gupta for the service rendered in the Kolkotta Port Trust along with the service rendered for the period of 2 years 6 months and odd days (i.e. from 02.05.2017 to 30.11.2019) in the Cochin Port Trust.
(B) Please give copy of the relevant portion of the Act/Rules etc., which authorises Cochin Port Trust to sanction gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the service rendered by Capt. Gouri Prasad Biswal in the Paradip Port Trust ( different employer) along with the service rendered from 08.06.2015 to 28.02.2018 in the Cochin Port Trust.
(C) Please issue the relevant portion of the Act/ Rules etc., based on which the Cochin Port Trust exempted the abovementioned Sri. Goutam Gupta and Capt. Gouri Prasad Biswal from the basic requisite of uninterrupted minimum service of 5 years for earning gratuity.
(D) It is requested to give the photo copy of the relevant portion of the Acts/Rules etc under which the Cochin Port Trust sanctioned the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to Capt. K.C. Thomas for the period of his deputation in the DCl/SCI, where the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not applicable.
(E) Whether the Dredging Corporation of India/Shipping Corporation of India has discharged their pro-rata / pensionary liability for the period of deputation in their organization for counting that service in the Cochin Port Trust? Please give copy of the communication of DCI/SCI addressed to Cochin Port Trust in this regard or relevant page of the service book of the employee/Officer where it is recorded on proper attestation.
(F) Please issue a photocopy of the relevant portion of the Act/Rules etc., under which the Cochin Port Trust allowed Sri. Hassan to remit the pro-rata pensionary liability in contravention of the reason stated in the beginning part of the para 15 of the proceedings 05.04.2021. And, Issue to me copy of 2 the relevant proceedings authorizing and disbursing payment of Gratuity to the employees mentioned in the cited reference above."
The CPIO furnished a para wise reply to the appellant on 09.06.2021 stating as follows:-
Reply : Your application dated 30.04.2021 (received by this office on 07.05.2021 xxxxxx "SI. No. A, B, C &D:- The Gratuity sanctioned is under provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and copies of the Act is available at indiacode.nic.in SI. No. E:- No such communication from DCI/SCI is available in the concerned dept.
SI. No. F:- The details have already been communicated to the applicant by Cochin Port Trust vide Proceeding No. D6/Ret Claim/PGM2018/S dated 05.04.2021."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.06.2021. FAA's order dated 29.07.2021 held as under:-
"The information requested at SI. No. A, B, C, D & E has already been provided vide letter dated 09.06.2021.
As regards the information at Sl. No. F:- a copy of the relevant portion of Proceedings No. D6/Ret. Claim/PGM201 8/S Dated 05.04.2021 is annexed."
CIC/CPTRS/A/2021/153970 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2021 seeking the following information:
"(1) On consequent on implementation of the above referred order, Cochin Port Trust has revised my pay w.e.f. 01.01.2017, and disbursed the salary arrears from 01.01.2017 to 28.02.2019 in two instalments i.e Rs. 60,419/-
on 31.10.2020 and Rs.60420/- on 03.05.2021, It is requested to provide me a copy of the detailed calculation statement of the salary arrears disbursed.
(2) The Secretary, CoPT, vide order No.A9/L.O.Gr.II/2016/S. dated 06.05.2016 promoted me from the post of Legal Assistant to the post of Law Officer Gr. II. At that time the pay of Legal Assistant was Rs.309501- and on 3 promotion to the post of the Law Officer Gr.II, the pay fixed @ Rs. 18,370/- in this is requested to give me a copy of the relevant portion of the order etc., prescribing the procedure norms adopted for fixing the pay on promotion to a class II post from a class III post and the details of the calculation arriving at fixing the pay @ Rs. 18,370/-
(3) Please give me photocopies of my book from the page 28 to ]."
The CPIO vide an interim reply dated 10.08.2021 requested the Appellant to deposit an amount Rs. 64/- in favour of FA & CAO, CPT to get the requisite information of 32 pages.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.08.2021.
In continuation of the averred reply, the CPIO upon receipt of the additional RTI fees, further replied to the appellant on 14.09.2021 by stating as follows:-
"Sl. No. 1 : 3 pages (Calculation statement of the salary arrears from 01.01.2017 to 28.02.2019) Sl. No. 2: 3 pages (Fixation of pay of Group C employee promoted as Group B after 01.01.2012 Pay fixation statement for promotion vide Secretary's Order No. A9/L.O.Gr.ll/2016-S dated 06.05.201G/Statement showing fixation of pay of Class C & D employees in the revised pay from 01.01.2007) Sl. No 3 : 26 pages (Copy of Service Book)."
In regard to his First Appeal, FAA's order dated 06.10.2021 held that information has already been provided to the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal(s).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Jijo Thomas, Sr. Dy. Secretary & CPIO present through video- conference.
Note- The instant cases are being heard on urgent hearing basis.4
In case no. CIC/CPTRS/A/2021/133324 -
The Appellant contested in great detail his grievance regarding rejection of his gratuity claim by the Respondent organization. He further expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that CPIO has failed to provide a copy of the relevant provisions of the Gratuity Act under which his claim was rejected while gratuity claim of a third -party whose case was similar, was approved. Lastly, he harped on the issue of delay by the CPIO in providing information for which he prayed for penal action to be initiated against the CPIO.
The CPIO in rebuttal of Appellant's contention explained that since there was a break in his service period as he had served on deputation with the State Government for a period of two years; his gratuity claim was rejected. He further submitted that in his reply, the attention of the Appellant was invited towards the specific hyperlink where from, the relevant provisions of the Gratuity Act could be accessed. He further apprised the Bench that against his grievance; the Appellant had approached the Hon'ble High Court and filed a writ petition which has been dismissed.
In case no. CIC/CPTRS/A/2021/153970 -
The Appellant restricted his arguments to the fact that a complete copy of his service book as sought for against point no. 3, has not been provided to him till date. He further harped on the delay aspect in getting the reply for which he prayed the Commission that the CPIO should be penalized for such violations.
In response to the Appellant's contentions, the CPIO at the outset tendered his apologies for delay in responding to the RTI application and submitted that it was unintentional. He further submitted that although the service book of the Appellant contains 30 pages, however at point no. 3 he has sought for only 28 pages therefore, only relevant pages have been supplied to the Appellant. However, at the behest of the Commission, the CPIO agreed to resend a complete set of the service book to the Appellant.
Decision:
In case no. CIC/CPTRS/A/2021/133324- 5 The Commission upon a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of instant RTI Applications is of the considered view that the queries raised by the Appellant do not even conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as he has sought for the clarification/inferences from the CPIO based on speculations related to his grievance; and also the fact remains that it pertains to gratuity payment records of third parties which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act; to that extent merits of CPIO's reply cannot be called into question.
The Appellant 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.
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] wherein 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) Also, with regards to applicability of exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act against information sought for, the Commission would also like to bring attention of the Appellant towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 while explaining the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act referred to the above discussed judgments and observed as under:6
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
(Emphasis Supplied) Further, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding the delay in reply is unacceptable in view of the fact that timely interim reply seeking payment of additional of photocopying charges by the CPIO vide letter dated 10.08.2021 was furnished to the Appellant as per RTI Act.
In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
In case no. CIC/CPTRS/A/2021/153970- The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no infirmity in the earlier reply provided by the CPIO as the same adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
As regards, the delay in providing the reply by the CPIO, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contentions of the Appellant to initiate penal action against the CPIO for want of malafide intent.
However, in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to provide a complete copy of the service book in response to point no. 3 of RTI Application free of cost to the Appellant. The said direction should be complied by the CPIO within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
7Lastly, the grievance raised by the Appellant is unamenable under the RTI Act. In this regard, he is advised to pursue the matter through appropriate administrative mechanism.
The appeal (s) are 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 / 8