Central Information Commission
Atul Prakash Singh vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 22 May, 2023
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/ BHELD/A/2022/650063
Atul Prakash Singh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bharat Heavy Electricals
Limited, RTI Cell, Prerna
Bhawan, Piplani, Bhopal,
M.P.-462022. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15/05/2023
Date of Decision : 15/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05/07/2022
CPIO replied on : 27/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 23/08/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 02/09/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14/09/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.07.2022 seeking the following information:1
"I had applied for BHEL Employee Pension Scheme by filling in the forms provided by the BHEL Bhopal officials, at their single window cell office, and deposited the duly filled and verified forms on 20.08.2021.
Till date my pension has not been approved.
Please inform the date by which my pension fund amount shall be released to the annuity provider so that my monthly pension can start. Your kind help and support is needed in my difficult financial condition."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 27.07.2022 stating as under:
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.08.2022. FAA's order, if any, dated 02.09.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Namrata Jaiswal, Dy. Manager (Law) & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply on the following arguments -2
"...I had applied for BHEL Employee Pension Scheme by filling the forms provided by the BHEL Bhopal officials, at their single window cell office, and deposited the duly filled and verified forms on 20.08.2021.
Till date my pension has not been approved.
My query under RTI was that I be informed the date by which my pension fund amount shall be released to the annuity provider chosen under the option given in the form so that my monthly pension can start.
The reply provided on 27.07.22, reiterated in the reply provided to first appeal on 03.09.22, does not clarify the time schedule as asked above. Both the consensual replies bring in and refer to factors (from a so-called 'recent order' issued by BHEL Corporate Office at New Delhi) not present at the time of my application, which was more than a year back; and avoids answering the query for the information sought..."
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant. However, he further added that the Appellant was asked to fill up all the required details/ information by submitting in a proper Form for availing the ' BHEL Employee Pension Scheme' . For this, he volunteered to extend all the facilitation for assisting the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se as much as it is about redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding non-receipt of entitled pension and seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.
From the standpoint of RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO is in spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
For better understating of the mandate of RTI Act, 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.3
His attention is also 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) As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another 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 4 strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
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 above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue his grievance through appropriate mechanism. For this, the CPIO may extend all the facilitation in redressal of the issue raised by the Appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5 6