Central Information Commission
Sushil Kumar vs Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. on 22 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/EPILT/A/2024/106580
CIC/EPILT/A/2024/108447
CIC/EPILT/A/2024/108445
Sushil Kumar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Engineering Projects (India) Ltd,
Core 3, SCOPE Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi - 110003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.07.2025
Date of Decision : 22.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
CIC/EPILT/A/2024/106580
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 25.01.2024
First appeal filed on : 05.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 23.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.02.2024
Page 1 of 16
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 19.12.2023 seeking the following information:
"Kindly arrange to furnish/provide following information/Documents under RTI Act 2005. The I-card copy of the undersigned and postal order no. 99G 102157 valuing Rs.50/- in favor of Engineering Projects (India) Limited is enclosed herewith.
1. Pl. provide 'soft copy through E-mail & hard copy' of note sheet / 'Minutes of Meeting of Interview conducted on 19.09.2011 containing comments of 'Interview/Selection' Board Committee members viz. then CMD, then Director (Finance), then ED, Shri Moolchand, then GM (HR), Sh. F. X. Topno, then external member Sh. SP Ram, Ex. (Director)- HR of National Financial Corporation etc. who were present & have conducted our interview on 19.09.2011 against the advertisement for Walk-in- Interview pertaining to us.
2. In reference to Office Order no. DLI/HRM/PER/1934 dtd. 28 April 2023 issued by Ms. Vinita Sharma, Sr. Mgr. (HR), please provide the following detail i.e. 'soft copy through E-mail & hard copy' pertaining to amount of Rs 16,29,511/- mentioned in above office order:
a) Basis of calculation i.e. Detailed calculation sheet.
b) Total Income Tax already paid.
c) Income Tax implication detail i.e. Income Tax adjusted detail"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 25.01.2024 stating as under:
"(i) The sought query has already been replied. However, it may again be informed that the sought information consisting of personal information of third party and confidential in nature is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (j), 8(1)(d) and section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) (a) The sought information enclosed as Annexure-I.
(b) The total tax deducted for the period Feb'18 to Dec'22 on Gross Salary of Rs.1,25,17,345/- is Rs.24,88,104/-.
(c) Income Tax has been deducted at source' on Gross payment released to the employee concerned based on prevailing Income Tax Act & rules in the country during Feb'18 to Dec'22. No adjustment has been made in Income Tax deducted at source form Gross Salary being released during Financial Year 2023-24 till date due to stay on recovery from your Salary account by Hon'ble High Court, Guwahati."Page 2 of 16
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 23.02.2024, held as under.
"In this regard, it is submitted that the reply given by the Public Information Officer, EPI is in order and is as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. No further information can be provided. Further, it may be informed that the above reply has already been sent to yourself by PIO, EPI vide email dated 25.01.2024 (Copy of the email attached).
The appeal stands disposed off."
4. A written submission has been received from Tapas Kumar Muduli, Assistant General Manager-cum-CPIO vide letter dated 08.07.2025 and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"This is in reference to the Second appeal filed by appellant Shri Sushil Kumar against PIO' reply dated 25.01.2025.
The submission for the second appeal filed by the Appellant Shri Sushil Kumar is as given below: -
This query has already been replied to the applicant vide PIO reply dated 13.12.2023, however, he repeatedly quotes the similar queries. This is the 3rd time, he has been asking the same query. It is submitted that Note Sheet/Minutes of meeting consists of confidential information, remarks by the jury/committee members pertaining to the individuals who may not be selected for the job also. Hence, the applicant was informed that the information being personal information of the third party can not be disclosed."
CIC/EPILT/A/2024/108447 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.11.2023 CPIO replied on : 21.12.2023 First appeal filed on : 26.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 25.01.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15.03.2024 Page 3 of 16 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 23.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"A)Please provide following information/documents:
i) Name of HOD (HR) in December 2022 in EPI
ii) Copies of my e-mail Dated 16.9.2011 Sub: Application-Walk in interview addressed to Sh. F.X. Topno then GM(HR) with attachment Application-(walk in interview).
iii) Copy of e-mail dated 18.09.2011 addressed to me from Sh. F.X. Topno then GM(HR) regarding walk in interview in EPI
iv) Copy of my hard copy application
v) Copy(s) of my e-mail dated 27.09.2011 addressed to Sh. FX Topno then GM(HR) and DF EPI i.e. then Director Finance; with their comments regarding Protection of my pay and seniority
vi) Copy of the Note Sheet/ 'Minutes of meeting'/Comments of interview Board/ Committee members, on the interview conducted between 19.09.2011 30.09.2011 against the advertisement(s) for walk in interview pertaining to Ex-EPIL Engineers.
vii) Copy of Approval for issuing office order no. DLI/HRM/PER/1934 dated 27.01.2023 by Ms. Vinita Sharma, Sr. Mgr. (HR), CO, New Delhi
viii) Copy of Approval for issuing office order no. DLI/HRM/PER/1934 dated 28.04.2023 by Ms. Vinita Sharma, Sr. Mgr. (HR), CO, New Delhi
ix) Copies of the correspondences between EPI and me w.e.f. 28.09.2011 to 31.03.2012."
6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.12.2023 stating as under:
"(i) Shri P.K Sahoo, the then ED(HR)
(ii) Not available as email of Sh. F.X. Topno (Retired employee) not accessible.
(iii) As per query, the sought information is already available with yourself. Further, email of Sh. F.X. Topno (Retired employee) not accessible.
(iv) Attached as Annexure-I
(v) As per query, the sought information is already available with yourself." Further, email of Sh. F.X. Topno (Retired employee) not accessible
(vi) The sought information pertaining to other employees is third party information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public Page 4 of 16 activity or interest; hence the same is exempted from disclosure under section 11 of RTI Act 2005.
(vii &viii) The sought information may impede the process of investigation. Hence, exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (h) and also the disclosure of such information has no relation to any public activity or interest. Hence the disclosure is not in larger public interest.
(ix) The query sought is not specific."
7. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 25.01.2024, held as under.
"SUB: RTI Appeal dated 26.12.2023 (RTI application dated 23.11.23, PIO Reply dated 21.12.2023) RTI Appeal dated 22.12.2023 (RTI application dated 09.11.23, PIO Reply 13.12.2023) Sir, The undersigned in the capacity as Appellate Authority, EPI has gone through your subject 2 nos. appeals and has obtained response to your appeal from CPIO, EPL In this regard, it is submitted that the reply given by the Public Information Officer, EPI is in order and is as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. No further information can be provided.
It may be noted that reply given by PIO is within the time limit as per provisions of the RTI Act, as RTI application dated 09.11.2023 was received by PIO on 14.11.2023 and disposed off on 13.12.2023.
Further, as requested, the aforesaid RTI replies provided by PIO are also being sent on your given mail id [email protected] The appeal stands disposed off."
8. A written submission has been received from Tapas Kumar Muduli, Assistant General Manager-cum-CPIO vide letter dated 08.07.2025 and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"This is in reference to the Second appeal filed by appellant Shri Sushil Kumar against PIO reply dated 21.12.2023.Page 5 of 16
The submission for the second appeal filed by the Appellant Shri Sushil Kumar is as given below; -
1. In reference to point (1) of the query raised: This query as already been replied to the applicant vide PIO reply dated 13.12.2023, however, he repeatedly quotes the similar queries It is submitted that Note Sheet/Minutes of meeting consists of confidential information, remarks by the jury/committee members pertaining to the individuals who may not be selected for the job also. Hence, the applicant was informed that the information being personal information of the third party cannot be disclosed.
2. In reference to points (2 & 3) of the queries raised: It is submitted that Shri Sushil Kumar has filed case in Hon'ble court regarding recovery of excess payment paid to him and the matter is sub judice and is still not concluded. Hence the applicant informed accordingly that the sought information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005. Further, it is also submitted that the mentioned letter has been issued by the concerned dealing officer appointed by the then HOD-HR.
3. In reference to point (4) of the queries raised: It is submitted that EPI has various departments, receiving numerous letters each day through mails, posts etc., it is difficult to trace the letters unless the applicant specifies the department or the mode of sending the letter."
CIC/EPILT/A/2024/108445 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.11.2023 CPIO replied on : 13.12.2023 First appeal filed on : 22.12.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 25.01.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.02.2024 Information sought:
9. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 09.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"A) Please provide following information in connection with Walk in interview held in September 2011 for Ex-EPIL Engineers who had earlier resigned and left the organization.Page 6 of 16
i) Copy of the advertisement(s) in EPI website and News paper-(Pl. provide Any One copy only)
ii) Number and Name of the Ex-EPI engineers who had been called.
iii) Number and Name of the Ex-EPI engineers who had been Re- appointed and offered appointment letter with Designation.
iv)a) Detail of their Pay scale and salary Protection of all Ex-EPI engineers who were Re-appointed. Pl. provide Detail of individual Re-appointed Ex- EPI engineer.
b) Whether all Re-appointed Ex-EPI engineers were working in private or Govt. organization before joining EPI. Pl. provide Detail of individual Re- appointed Ex-FPI engineer
c) Last basic salary drawn in EPI and Basic Salary given to all Re-
appointed Ex-EPI engineers especially pertaining to Sh. Harish Chada (Retd GM), Sh. S. Rajeev (Retd. GM), Sh. K.G. Rangnathan (Retd. AGM). Sh. Shrinivas D, DGM
d) Whether Re-appointed Ex-EPI engineers especially Sh. Harish Chada (Retd GM), Sh. S. Rajeev (Retd. GM), had paid back excess salary.
v) Copy of the 'Minutes of meeting', Evaluation sheet for the Interview conducted between 19.09.2011 30.09.2011 against the said advertisement(s) pertaining to Ex-EPIL Engineers,
vi) will Copy of the 'Comments of committee member, name of external member, detail of re-appointed Ex-EPI engineers in connection with interview conducted between 19.09.2011-30.09.2011 against said advertisement(s)
vii) Copy of Pay fixation orders in 2011 & 2019 of the undersigned duly signed by HR official.
viii) Copy of organization charts (Half yearly i.e. April Sept & Oct-March) of HR officials/staff with roles & responsibility posted in Corporate office in Fin Yr. 2011-12, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2019-2020 and 2022-23
ix) Copy of the increment order(s) of undersigned duly signed by HR official(s) each year w.e.f. 2011 to 2023. Name of the HR officer/staff who has released increment order(s)..
x) Name of HR Head in July 2009, September 2011, November 2019 and January-March 2023
xi) Why HR (Heads) had accepted all pay fixations; and was Silent till 2022 on Pay fixation of undersigned. Reason thereof?
xii)a) Number of Audits conducted by i) Internal Audit and ii) CAG Audit during 2011- to 2021
b) Copy of their comments if any on Pay fixation of undersigned till 2021 (Prior to 2022) Page 7 of 16
xiii) Name of the HR officer(s) Who had fixed 1" pay fixation order & Second pay fixation order of the undersigned and Name of the IIR officer(s) who had checked and recommended to Finance Division for payments.
xiv) Under which rule DPE's OM Dtd. 14.12.2012 applicable on the staff who had joined in 2011 Le joined prior to issuance of Circular/OM.
xiv) "As per policy manual (EPI/QES/14) of EPI, HOD is required to ensure that all records are identified, collected, indexed, filed, stored for quick retrieval, protected, maintained. Records remain legible, readily identifiable and retrievable. Each HOD maintains a master list of records and pertaining to his department Records are maintained as Hard Copy/Soh Copy. All records are identified, files and kept safely for easy access and retrievability. They are stored safely in a suitable environment in order to minimize their deterioration, damage and loss.
As per procedure Manual (EPI/QES/P/07 Control of records), the responsibility of HOD that the records are reviewed by the HOO for effectiveness and usefulness. All records are legible/identifiable, stored and maintained in such a way that retrieval is easy and any possibility of deterioration, damage or loss is prevented"
Kindly arrange to furnish/ provide following:
a) Since our Documents remains in the custody of HR division then Where are our personal documents? viz. E-mails & Application, Pay fixation orders, leave encashment orders, transfer orders, MY Experience with EPL Comments of Hill and De(F) on my mails, other correspondences etc. because of which CAG commented that there is very poor maintenance of records pertaining to human resources by Hin department. Pl. provide Detail.
b) Why our relevant documents were not presented at the time of CAG Audit when they are in the custody of HR Division.
c) Why Facts/documents were not presented to CAG Auditor through Sh. Rats Kartikeya, DGM(HR) who was aware of the facts, as he was present and involved during recruitment process with then HI officials namely Sh. FX. Topno Retd. GM & Ma Krishna Pandey (Retd).
d) Why undersigned was not given the opportunity for representing my side before Issuance of letter Dtd. 27.01.2023 by Ma Vinita Sharma, Sr. Mer (HR), Reason thereof?
ii) Why Documents under reference letter Dtd. 27.01.2023 were not enclosed/provided by Ms. Vinita Sharma, and Detail calculation including double tax deduction was not enclosed/provided by Ms. Vinita Sharma vide their letter dated 28.04.2023. Reason thereof ?Page 8 of 16
iii) Why it was not clarified to CAG that DPE'S OM dated 14.12.2012 will not be applicable on the employees joined in 2011 i.e. joined prior to issuance of circular.
e) How many times then HOD(HR) has reviewed the documents till 2021. Pl.
provide the detail of their observation, if any.
B Pl. provide following seniority list
i) List of DGM as on 31.03.2009-
ii) List of AGM as on 31.03.2010-
iii) List of AGM as on 31.03..2014
iii) List of AGM as on 31.03.2015 C. PI Provide Year wise ACR marks of the undersigned since 2011 to 2023.
D. Pl Provide Detail of staff (AGM and above) appointed in Technical cadre on Regular and contractual basis w.e.f. 2011-16 mentioning i) qualification and ii) experience of individual appointed AGM,GM,GGM,ED E. E-mail Copy of the staff invited in DPC for the post of GM in 2014 and 2015"
10. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.12.2023 stating as under:
(i)Enclosed as Annexure-I
(ii)Enclosed as Annexure-II
(iii)Enclosed as Annexure-III (iv a,b,c &d) The sought information relates to personal information of the third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(1) of RTI Act 2005.
(v) The sought information is third party information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest; hence the same is exempted from disclosure under section 11 of RTI Act 2005.
(vi) The details w.r.t re-appointed Ex-EPI engineers is already provided above.
Further, Name of External Committee Member: Dr. S.P. Ram, Ex (Director)-HR, National Financial Corporation.
(vii) As per records, no such orders issued, hence the sought information is not available.
(viii) Enclosed as Annexure-
(ix) There is no procedure for issuance of increment order in EPIL every year.
(x)Name of HR Head
1. July 2009: Shri F.X. Topno, GM(HR)
2. September 2011: Shri F.X. Topno, GM(HR)
3. November 2019: Shri P.K. Sahoo, GGM(HR) Page 9 of 16
4. January March 2023: Shri P.K. Sahoo, ED(HR)
(xi)The sought query does not come under the purview of RTI Act, 2005.
(xii) a(i) Due to fire in Corporate Office in year 2016, records pertaining to previous years upto 2015-16 was destroyed and are not available. Internal Audit Corporate Office has been conducted in two phases from FY 2016-17 onwards till March 2021
(xii) a.(ii) As per available records, CAG Audit was conducted 9 times from 2010-2011tτο 2020-2021
(xii) b NIL as per available records.
(xiii)Not applicable in view of reply given at point no. (vii) above.
(xiv)First guideline for pay protection issued in 1989. Number of guidelines issued since 1989 specifying that candidates from various sectors included for pay protection. Till date candidates from private sector are not included in the same since 1989.
(xv)-a The query is not specific.
(xv) (b, c & d) The sought query does not come under the purview of RTI Act, 2005.
(xv)-(e)No such records available.
(B) The available information (as on 31.03.2014 & 31.03.2015) is attached herewith as Annexure V. (C) Enclosed as Annexure- VI.
(D) Enclosed as Annexure- VII.
(E) The sought information is third party information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest; hence the same is exempted from disclosure under section 11 of RTI Act 2005.
Further, it may be noted that there is no provision of carry forward/deduction from the salary as per RTI Act 2005.
The additional fees, if any, has to be deposited by the applicant after recommended by the Public Information Officer of the Public Authority.
The above may please be noted for future correspondence."
11. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 25.01.2024, held as under.
"SUB: RTI Appeal dated 26.12.2023 (RTI application dated 23.11.23, PIO Reply dated 21.12.2023) RTI Appeal dated 22.12.2023 (RTI application dated 09.11.23, PIO Reply 13.12.2023) Sir, Page 10 of 16 The undersigned in the capacity as Appellate Authority, EPI has gone through your subject 2 nos. appeals and has obtained response to your appeal from CPIO, EPL In this regard, it is submitted that the reply given by the Public Information Officer, EPI is in order and is as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. No further information can be provided.
It may be noted that reply given by PIO is within the time limit as per provisions of the RTI Act, as RTI application dated 09.11.2023 was received by PIO on 14.11.2023 and disposed off on 13.12.2023.
Further, as requested, the aforesaid RTI replies provided by PIO are also being sent on your given mail id [email protected] The appeal stands disposed off."
12. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
13. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
14. The Commission also noted that proof of having served a copy of his Second Appeal on the Respondent has not been uploaded by the Appellant while filing the same before the Commission. On a query, the Respondent confirms non-service.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Tapas Kumar Muduli, CPIO-cum-AGM, Ms. Prabhjot Kaur, Senior Manager and Shri Atul Kapoor, Senior Manager, attended the hearing in person.
15. The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. While explaining the brief background of the case, he apprised the Bench of the fact that has worked in the Respondent Public Authority as General Manager (Technical) and the information sought in these RTI Applications is regarding his pay protection/fixation. He added that he left EPI and Page 11 of 16 joined in private sector after the board approved his pay protection. Later when he re-joined the service on higher post, a wrongful recovery has been made by a junior officer (who is not his appointing authority) after 11 years without the approval of the Board which is the competent authority to do so and that is why he is seeking such information.
16. The Respondent submitted that the then CPIO Shri Arun Kumar Bhowal, GM (Planning), now transferred to Business Development branch has provided a suitable reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act to the Appellant. He further submitted that the Appellant resigned from the services in the year 2009 as Deputy General Manager. EPI issued Advertisement for re-employment and the Appellant was re- appointed as AGM in the year 2011 with pay protection but no separate with regards to pay fixation has been issued. He added that the Appellant has preferred a court case regarding recovery of excess payment paid to him and the matter is sub judice and is still not concluded. Hence, the Appellant was informed accordingly that the sought information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005.
17. The Commission interjected and asked the Respondent that whether any stay order has been passed by the Court not to disclose the information to the Appellant, the Respondent replied in negative.
18. A written submission has been received from Tapas Kumar Muduli, Assistant General Manager-cum-CPIO vide letter dated 08.07.2025 and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"This is in reference to the Second appeal filed by appellant Shri Sushil Kumar against PIO's reply dated 13.12.2023.
CASE HISTORY OF SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR It is submitted that Shri Sushil Kumar has been working in EPI since 1989, however resigned from the services in the year 2009 as Deputy General Manager. EPI issued Advertisement for re-employment and Shri Sushil Kumar was re- appointed as AGM in the year 2011 with pay protection. The applicant's salary was constantly protected till December 2022.
However, based on CAG observation for excess payment (as calculated by Finance Division) made to Shri Sushil Kumar, the Concerned Dealing Page 12 of 16 Officer vide order dated 27.01.2023 informed the applicant for reducing the basic pay with retrospective effect (i.e. 28.09.2011) and further vide letter dated 28.04.2023 Informed to recover an amount of Rs.16,29,511/- from the salary in equal installments from the remaining period of the service and in response, Shri Sushil Kumar filed Writ Petition before Hon'ble Court in the year 2023 in this regard.
It is further submitted that P10, EPI has already disposed of 7 no. of RTI applications filed by the applicant during his term in the organization and post his superannuation. All queries are related to his personal case regarding recovery of ex-payment drawn by him during his tenure in EPI.
1. In reference to query (iv), sub-parts [(a)-(d)]: It is submitted that since the information sought by the applicant involves personal information of the engineers wr.t their pay protection, working experience before EΡΙ, payment of excess salary to particular engineers, the applicant was informed that these information relates to personal information of the third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. The applicant has not clearly mentioned about the details required for re-appointed Ex Engineers. The List of the re-appointed Ex- Engineers alongwith their pay scales is attached herewith for reference please.
2. In reference to query (v): It is submitted that Minutes of meeting consists of information, confidential remarks by the jury/committee members pertaining to the individuals which may not be selected for the job also. Hence, the applicant was informed that the information being personal information of the third party cannot be disclosed.
3. In reference to query (vi): It is submitted that the available information has already been provided to the applicant and further it is submitted that Comments of Committee members being confidential information was not provided to the applicant.
4. In reference to query (xiv): It is submitted that the available information has already been provided to the applicant.
5. In reference to query (B): It is submitted that the available information has already been provided to the applicant
6. In reference to query (D): It is submitted that the available information has already been provided to the applicant Page 13 of 16
7. In reference to query (E): It is submitted E-mail Copy of the staff invited in DPC consisting of details of various employees including non selected also, hence the applicant was informed that the said information relates to personal information of the third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.
However, the list of candidates invited for Interview for the post of GM for the year 2014 & 2015 is attached herewith."
Decision:
19. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant has sought personal information i.e. service-related records. The Commission notes that where the information of any officer is sought by the applicant to defend his own service matter, then bar of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act may not be applicable in view of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case titled A.S. Mallikarjunaswamy vs. SIC & Ors., W.P. No. 23695 of 2022 dated 22.08.2023 with the following observations -
"...5. The petitioner, a party-in-person is justified in contending that unless the service particulars of the persons which he has sought for in the subject RTI application are furnished, he will not be in a position to work out his grievance in the subject service matter. This aspect has not animated the impugned order and therefore there is an error apparent on its face warranting indulgence of this court. He is more than justified in placing reliance on the Government Order dated 02.06.2011 which prescribes certain parameters for granting relaxation of service conditions relating to NC: 2023:KHC:29928 reservation. To avail benefit under the said Government Order, the information which the petitioner has sought for, becomes essential. Denying information virtually amounts denying opportunity to the petitioner to avail the benefit of said Government Order...."
20. In view of the applicability of above ratio in this case, exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is not available.
21. The Commission further observes that the Respondent has denied the information to the Appellant under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act citing the matter is sub-judice. The Commission counsels the Respondent that Page 14 of 16 there is no provision in RTI Act which allows denial of information on the grounds of sub-judice.
22. In view of the above, the exemptions claimed are incorrect and therefore, the order of the CPIO are set aside. There are sufficient reasons to doubt the bonafide of the CPIO. Accordingly, Shri Tapas Kumar Muduli, CPIO-cum-AGM is directed to afford an opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Before giving a date to the Appellant, the Respondent should supply him a list of files connected with the query in the RTI application giving File Nos., Subject of the file, and total number of pages of correspondence in each file. Further, on the day of inspection, all relevant records must be brought at one place to facilitate inspection and not make the Appellant run around various departments of the Respondent Public Authority. Intimation of date and time should be sent to the Appellant well in advance in writing. Copy of records as may be desired by the Appellant be provided to him upon receipt of requisite fees as per RTI Rules. Information which are exempt under the RTI Act may be redacted/severed invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act duly supported by reasoned explanation.
23. The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 15 of 16 Copy To:
The FAA, Engineering Projects (India) Ltd, Core 3, SCOPE Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 Page 16 of 16 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)