Central Information Commission
Bhagat Ram vs Department Of Power on 7 October, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOPWR/A/2019/103461
Shri Bhagat Ram ... /Appellant
अपीलकता
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/Dept. of Power, IP Estate, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi
Date of Hearing : 06.10.2020
Date of Decision : 07.10.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.10.2018
PIO replied on : 11.10.2018/ 29.11.2018
First Appeal filed on : 22.10.2018
First Appellate Order on : 27.11.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 23.01.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 01.10.2018 seeking information on 5 points as under
1. Is existing Recruitment Rules and FR/SR of Delhi Vidyut Board were amended by the BSES Yamuna Power Limited?
2. If amended, Is BSES Yamuna Power Limited was obtained the approvals of amendments of Recruitment Rules and FR/ SR of Delhi Vidyut Board after mutual negotiations with the Principal Secretary (Power), Government of NCT of Delhi/ Hon'ble Governor of Delhi as per terms and conditions of tripartite agreement?
3. Under which Recruitment Rules Shri Suresh Kumar promoted as VP (HR), working in BSES Yamuna Power Limited siting at Pre-Fabricated Building, Rajghat Power House, Delhi - 110002.
4. Is there any sanctioned as VP post in Recruitment Rules of Delhi Vidyut Board?
5. Is Shri Suresh Kumar is a regular/ permanent employee of BSES Yamuna Power Limited or he is erstwhile employee of Delhi Vidyut Board?
Queries are verbatim The PIO/Dept. of Power, vide letter dated 11.10.2018 stated as follows "...It is further inform that details of employees working under the jurisdiction of Discoms are not dealt in this Department and the same are being dealt by the other successor utility companies of erstwhile DVB wherein the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated Page 1 of 3 23.01.2007 in W.P. Nos. 542/2007, 543/2007 and 544/2007 had stayed the impugned order of CIC dated 03.01.2006 wherein Hon'ble CIC had directed distribution companies to appoint their public authorities within specified time frame. Hence, this Department is not in a position to transfer your application u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005, to DISCOM."
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 22.10.2018. The FAA vide order dated 27.11.2018 directed the PIO/Dept. of Power to transfer the matter to BYPL for the appropriate action within 15 days of issue of the order.
In compliance of the FAA order, PIO/Dept. of Power, vide letter dated 29.11.2018 transferred his application to The CEO, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. The representative of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd vide letter dated 26.12.2018 informed the Appellant that their organization is not a Public Authority and the issue of applicability of the RTI Act, 2005 on BSES Yamuna Power Ltd is sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No 543/2007 where the CICs order declaring BSES as a Public Authority has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 28.02.2014 pending the writ petition.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 23.09.2020 has been sent by the PIO, D/o Power wherein while re-iterating the action taken in the matter, it was stated that subsequent to the order of the FAA, the matter was sent to BSES Yamuna Power Ltd that has never responded, till date.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. While alleging that employees/ officers lower in rank to him were promoted in an unfair, discriminatory and arbitrary manner, the Appellant requested for disclosure of information in the larger public interest.
The Respondent is represented by Shri Sanjay Kumar, SO and PIO through audio conference. He re-iterated the stand of the PIO and stated that they had forwarded the matter to BSES Yamuna Power Limited which was the custodian of information. The Respondent also conveyed that the stay in Civil Writ Petition No 543/2007 continues to remain in operation and the matter is still sub-judice.Page 2 of 3
DECISION:
The instant case arises out of a grievance of the Appellant regarding unfair treatment meted out to him vis a vis other employees in the context of promotion to a higher post. However, desired information is held by the BYPL which has not been declared public authority, as of now as the matter is pending adjudication before the Delhi High Court. It is hoped that the Hon'ble Court will decide this long pending issue soon so that inconvenience caused to the public at large, in seeking necessary information from the DISCOMs is addressed finally. Hence, at this point of time, no further direction can be issued in this case.
The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
वाई. के . िस हा) वाई.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई िस हा
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514
Page 3 of 3