Central Information Commission
Lt. Col. R. S. Shekhawat vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) on 11 December, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2019/637239
Lt. Col. RS Shekhawat ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. The DGM (P-Cord/RTI) & ... ितवादी /Respondents
Nodal CPIO, SAIL, Corporate
Office, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
2. The DGM (Pers.) & Nodal
CPIO
SAIL, RTI Cell, Industry House
10 Camac Street, Kolkata-700017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 16-07-2017 FA : 12-01-2019 SA : Dated Nil
CPIO : 19-07-2017 FAO : 14-02-2019 Hearing : 03-12-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) SAIL, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information on eight points, including, inter-alia:-
Page 1 of 3(i) Provide exact extract of DPE guidelines as referred in the para iv of the SAIL CO letter no pers /pp/TA dated 11.12.2015 mentioning of ONLY the difference between the civil & military pay based on which the statutory provision of the SAIL leave salary rules 19.1 & 19.5 are overruled with NO payments of any differential of pay to me;
(ii) SAIL CO to provide the numerical details of financial losses incurred to SAIL exchequer if any owing to my military embodiments that are without any TA DA & No deputation allowance from SAIL, etc.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 12.01.2019 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 14.02.2019 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 01.12.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him by the respondent on point no. 7 of his RTI application dated 16.07.2017. The appellant submitted that this information should be maintained by the respondent public authority.
6. The respondent submitted that they have categorically informed the appellant on point no. 7 of his RTI application that no such information is available on record. The respondent submitted that no compensation for an individual employee has been maintained in their office. Such type of tabulation has not been maintained by them.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant is aggrieved that information on point no. 7 has not been provided to him. He insisted that such information should be maintained by the respondent public authority. On the other hand, the respondent has informed the appellant that such type of information is not maintained in their Page 2 of 3 office. The Commission is of the view that the query of the appellant on point no. 7 is presumptive in nature and he has expected that the CPIO should first analyze the information and then provided to the appellant. The Commission is of the view that only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information; or to comment / give opinion on an issue; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. The Commission is satisfied with the response given by the CPIO.
8. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कुमार गु ता)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ता
सूचना आयु त)
Information Commissioner (स त
दनांक / Date 03-12-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स$ािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The DGM (P-Cord/RTI) & Nodal CPIO
SAIL, Corporate Office, Ispat Bhawan
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
2. The DGM (Pers.) & Nodal CPIO
SAIL, RTI Cell, Industry House
10 Camac Street, Kolkata-700017
3. Lt. Col. R.S. Shekhawat
Page 3 of 3