Central Information Commission
Ravinder Paswan vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 11 November, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/625469-BJ+
CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/625466-BJ
Mr. Ravinder Paswan
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001
2. CPIO
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
17, Jamshedji Tata Road, P O Box No. 11041
Mumbai - 400020
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.11.2019
Date of Decision : 11.11.2019
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/625469-BJ Date of RTI application 11.03.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 16.04.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 21.06.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the provision of the CCS (Pension) Rule under which the approval had been granted to HPCLs Pension Scheme Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme in which statutory provision of Social Security such as Gratuity and Provident Fund gross amount of deceased employee's (who passed away while in service before the notional date of retirement ) could take custody till notional date of retirement to avail compassionate ground job benefits policy of beneficiary.Page 1 of 6
Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO (not on the record of the Commission), the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 21.06.2018 concurred with the response of the CPIO dated 21.03.2018.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/625466-BJ Date of RTI application 11.03.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 16.04.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 21.06.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the provision of the CCS (Pension) Rule under which the approval had been granted to HPCLs Pension Scheme Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme in which statutory provision of Social Security such as Gratuity and Provident Fund gross amount of deceased employee's (who passed away while in service before the notional date of retirement ) could take custody till notional date of retirement to avail compassionate ground job benefits policy of beneficiary.
Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO (not on the record of the Commission), the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 21.06.2018 concurred with the response of the CPIO dated 21.03.2018.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Sanjit Chand Paswan Appellant's representative; Respondent: Mr. Vinay Kumar, US, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi in person; and Mr. Gurunath, DGM (HR), HPCL, Bandra through VC;
The Appellant's representative was not completely conversant with the facts of the case but submitted that the information sought was not provided by the Respondent, till date. In its reply, the Respondent (M/o Petroleum and Natural Gas) stated that the instant RTI application was transferred by them to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) vide their letter dated 14.03.2018 since the subject matter of the information sought pertained to their jurisdiction and that they had nothing more to add in the matter pertaining to the action taken by them on the RTI application. The Respondent (HPCL) submitted that the information available with them was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 21.03.2018 by the CPIO. The First Appeal was also decided vide order dated 21.06.2018. The Respondent also submitted that a similar matter regarding compassionate appointment pertaining to his own matter was also being contested before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W. P. (C ) 5538/2015 which was also acknowledged by the Appellant in his written submission. On being queried by the Commission regarding providing a clear and cogent response to the Appellant in the affirmative or negative pertaining to the provision of the CCS (Pension) Rules approving grant of HPCLs Pension Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme, no satisfactory response was provided by the Respondent (HPCL, Mumbai).Page 2 of 6
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 15.10.2019, wherein it was requested to prepone his hearing before the Commission for the reason that on the same date his hearing was fixed before Hon'ble Delhi High Court bearing W.P. ( C ) 5538/2015 on pension scheme & compassionate ground job policy. With regard to the RTI application it was stated that more than 250 deceased employee family dependants were affected from HPCL pension policy wherein on sudden demise of workmen their family was asked to surrender gross Gratuity, gross PF and gross GSLI to avail compassionate ground job policy under the clause of 7(b) (ii)/8A of HPCL pension policy. Through the recourse of RTI application, CPIO of CPSEs which comes under the M/o Petroleum & Natural Gas replied that deceased workmen's family were not asked to surrender statutory benefits.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 24.10.2019, wherein it was stated that the Appellant had sought information vide online RTI application dated 09.02.2018 on "approval of amendments modifications copies in respect of Pension Scheme for retire employees and death in service benefits to heirs of employee who passed away while in service in Superannuation Benefits Fund Scheme since inception of said Scheme to till today". Further, the Appellant had sought information vide another online RTI application dated 11.03.2018 regarding provisions of CCS (Pension) Rule approval granted to HPCL's Pension Scheme Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme in which statutory provision of social security such as Gratuity and Provident Fund gross amount of deceased employees (who passed away while in service before notional date of retirement) could be taken custody to till notional date of retirement to avail compassionate ground job benefits policy by beneficiary. Since the information sought vide RTI applications pertained to HPCL and no records were available with CPIO, the CPIO, MOPNG transferred the RTI applications online u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) for providing the requisite information directly to Appellant. Subsequently, the Appellant had filed Appeals dated 12.03.2019 and dated 13.03.2019 to the FAA in the Ministry stating that he did not get any information and requested to take necessary action for providing him the requisite information. Both the Appeals were disposed off by FAA dated 21.03.2018 and 02.04.2018 respectively. In this connection, HPCL had confirmed that the requisite information sought by the Appellant vide RTI applications dated 09.02.2019 and 11.03.2018 had already been provided online vide letters dated 26.02.2018 and 21.03.2018. Later the FAA of HPCL also disposed off the First Appeal vide letter dated 21.06.2018. Thus, the CPIO had taken timely action for transfer of RTI application to the concerned CPIO of HPCL since the information sought by the Appellant was not available with CPIO and there was no intention to hide nay information.
The Commission observed that the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and various judgements on the subject matter clearly establishes that it is the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent and precise response to the information seekers. Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005 also states that where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the CPIO shall communicate the reasons for such rejection. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 clearly stated that the PIO acts as the Pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act. The relevant extracts of the decision are as under:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the Page 3 of 6 statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed that ".....The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
A reference can also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the matter of Block Development Officer, Paonta Sahib vs. State Information Commission and Anr., CWP No. 6072 of 2012 dated 27.06.2018 held as under:
"9. It is vehemently urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from vice of arbitrariness and, therefore, should be quashed and set aside. It was further argued that the petitioner on receipt of the application had transferred it to the concerned authorities and, therefore, there was no lapse on his part. He would also urge that the petitioner did not know the intricacies of the RTI Act and, therefore, he could not have been penalized.
10. I find no merit in the contention put-forth by the petitioner. It is more than settled that ignorance of law can be no excuse. Once the petitioner is designated as PIO, then all the more he is deemed to have knowledge and even otherwise the least that was required of him was to have acquainted himself thoroughly with the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, the explanation as sought to be put-forth by the petitioner at this stage clearly reflects the lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner.Page 4 of 6
The only reasonable explanation for the cause of delay can be accepted and not lame excuses."
The Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information. In this context, the Commission referred to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
"The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary."
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
5..............................The Act provides that the first appellate authority would be an officer senior in rank to the CPIO. Thus, the appellate authority, as per provisions of the Act, would be an officer in a commanding position vis a vis' the CPIO. Nevertheless, if, in any case, the CPIO does not implement the order passed by the appellate authority and the appellate authority feels that intervention of higher authority is required to get his order implemented, he should bring the matter to the notice of the officer in the public authority competent to take against the CPIO. Such competent officer shall take necessary action so as to ensure implementation of the RTI Act. "
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decision cited above, the Commission while cautioning the CPIO to provide correct and timely information, instructs the Respondent (CPIO, HPCL, Mumbai) to re-examine the RTI application and provide clear, cogent and precise information to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications / hearings before the Commission. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself.
The Commission therefore expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application as also to the lack of preparedness of representatives of Public Authority with regard to attending to the hearings of the Commission. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was Page 5 of 6 enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information. The Respondent (Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi) was also advised to endorse a copy of their written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant, as well.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 11.11.2019
Copy to:-
1. The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, 2nd Floor, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110001
2. The CMD, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Petroleum House, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 Page 6 of 6