Central Information Commission
Mr.S Sivaraman vs Bhel on 8 August, 2012
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000101
Dated: 08.08.2012
Name of Appellant : Shri S. Sivaraman
Name of Respondent : Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
Date of Hearing : 09.05.2012
ORDER
Shri S. Sivaraman, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 22.10.2011 before the Commission against the respondent Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL), New Delhi for not providing complete and clear information in reply to his RTI-application dated 18.7.2011. The matter came up for hearing on 09.05.2012. The appellant was absent and the respondent were represented by Shri S. Satish Rao, AGM, Ms. Suguna Swaminathan, Sr. Manager and Ms. Shreysi Singh, Executive (Law).
2. The appellant had filed an application dated 18.7.2011 under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in which he sought information on 12 queries. The basic issue in the RTI application is BHEL's proposed pension scheme and its applicability, including coverage, terms and conditions and monetary details. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.8.2011 has replied to the appellant.
3. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 7.9.2011 before the FAA. The FAA (Appellate Committee) vide order dated 17.10.2011 directed the CPIO to readdress query Nos. 1 and 4 of the appellant 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000101 regarding details of the scheme, as Section 8(1)(d) has been wrongly invoked because the information sought by the appellant does not pertain to a third party but to a public authority. Further the CPIO was directed to provide the copies as sought by the appellant in query No. 8 and also to provide a specific figure in respect of query No. 9 to the appellant.
4. The respondent submit during the hearing that the directions of FAA were complied with by the CPIO vide his letter dated 5.11.2011 in which Point No. 1 and 4 were readdressed and information was provided on Point No. 8. As regards information sought at Point No. 9 where the appellant sought to know the total outlay earmarked by BHEL for giving pension to retired employees, the CPIO informed the information is not available since there is no circular regarding the same. Since it appeared from the second appeal that the appellant has not received the CPIO's reply dated 5.11.201 subsequent to the orders of the FAA dated 17.10.2011, the respondent have once again provided the same to the appellant.
5. During the hearing Smt. Suguna Swaminathan, Sr. Manager, BHEL informs that BHEL's proposal for pension to retired employees emanates from DPE guidelines dated 26.11.2008 and 2.4.2009. She clarifies that no scheme can be proposed by BHEL which is beyond these guidelines. Moreover, the new pension scheme is to be implemented through an Insurance Company. As of now there is no approved pension product by the IREDA which can be offered to BHEL by the Insurance Companies; the proposal, therefore, has not yet been notified.
6. It is the submission of the respondent that the appellant has been informed that the conditions and coverage of the proposed pension scheme will be strictly as per DPE guidelines dated 26.11.2008 and 2.4.2009, copies of which have already been provided to the appellant and are also available on the website of the DPE. However, in so far as providing a copy of the proposal is 3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000101 concerned, it has not yet been notified, therefore, the respondent have claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
7. At Point No. 10 of the RTI application, the appellant sought to know the number of employees' spouses and retired employees proposed to be covered by the current scheme approved by the Government, to which the respondent have replied that compilation and collation of the information sought by the appellant would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, therefore Section 7(9) of the RTI Act has been invoked.
8. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission observes that requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act including DPE guidelines, regarding conditions and guidelines, has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. As regards compilation information on employees/spouses to be covered by the scheme, such compilation of information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, therefore, the provisions of Section 7(9) apply.
The matter is accordingly disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar 4 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000101 Address of the parties:
Shri S. Sivaraman, No. 1, First Floor, A-Block, Parsn Gardens, Melur Road, Srirangam-620006.
The CPIO, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., BHEL House, Siri Fort, New Delhi-110049.
The First Appellate Authority, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., BHEL House, Siri Fort, New Delhi-110049.