Central Information Commission
Ratneshwari Ojha vs Banaras Hindu University on 25 February, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : . CIC/BANHU/C/2019/651394
Ratneshwari Ojha िशकायतकता/Complainant
िशकायतकता
....िशकायतकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
The Nodal CPIO,
Banaras Hindu University
RTI Cell, Faculty of Commerce,
Varanasi- 221005. (U.P) .... ितवाद गण/Respondent
गण
Date of Hearing : 25/02/2021
Date of Decision : 25/02/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 10/06/2019
CPIO replied on : 11/06/2019, 20/06/2019 & 25/06/2019
First appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Authority order : NA
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18/09/2019
1
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application on 10.06.2019 seeking information on points;
A. "Mention the name of post, designation, organization, faculty name of prof. Sudhir Sukla, Prof. J.B. Komariah, Prof. H. C Chaudhary who attended selection committee meeting in project code M-28/12 for selection of Complainant. Also provide the dates of absence in BHU during 2016. B. Provide the photocopy of all kinds of documents sent, submitted for any purpose related with Complainant to the ICSSR either by PI or the BHU during 2016 to December 2017 for the project code M-28/12. C. Mention the diary on, diary no. recipient, total deduction, net payment, bill amount, cheque date, cheque number, bill type, particulars, progressive, earmarked Ref to bill, in commerce project code- PM-28/12 for all kinds of monetary payment received by Mr. Duvvuri Venu Gopal of BHU during entire project.
D. Provide the photocopy of the circular/statement due to which Regional provident Fund Commissioner made the registration of contractual workers in any project of BHU compulsory under EPF & MP Act, 1952. E. Mention the exact date of implementation of EPF & MP Act, 1952 which makes it compulsory for contractual staff to be registered and allotted the EPF code for workers of project running in BHU.
F. Mention the exact date from which the payment of all contractual staffs/workers salary or any kind of remuneration was made compulsory to be sent in the bank A/C of the beneficiary only and using of cheque payment was closed for all project workers of BHU.
G. xxxxxxxx H. xxxxxxxx I. xxxxxxxx J. Provide me the contingency and salary related details like dates of payment, amounts paid, particular heads, transaction nos. and details of payments (all kinds) related to Prof. V. S. Sundaram (faculty of Commerce),BHU during 2008,2009 & 2010"
And other related information.2
The CPIO forwarded the RTI application on 11.06.2019 to the CPIO, Faculty of Commerce, BHU for providing information against point Nos. A, B, C, G, I(a), I(b), J and K of the RTI application.
The CPIO, Finance Office, BHU furnished reply to the Complainant on 20/22.06.2019 against point No. F and further forwarded the RTI application in respect to point No. J o A.R. (Accounts) Project, R.O. Finance, BHU.
The CPIO, Finance, Project Section forwarded the RTI application on 25.06.2019 to Prof. V. Shunmuga Sundara, Project Coordinator.
On 02.08.2019, CPIO, Faculty of Commerce furnished reply against point J of RTI application to the Complainant stating that "no information is available."
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a complaint to the Commission.
Grounds for the Complaint:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Kali Prasad, Assistant Registrar & CPIO faculty of Commerce and Dr. Rajesh Kr. Srivastava, Ex-CPIO present video conference.
The Complainant narrated her grievances with respect to her engagement as a project staff with the Respondent office and stated in a vague and generalised manner that in response to invariably all her RTI Applications, she has been provided with contradictory replies.
The Commission advised the Complainant to state her point of dissatisfaction with the reply provided to the instant RTI Application but she appeared to have not understood the same as she kept narrating her grievances and questioned various factual merits related to the administrative actions/inaction of the Respondent office.3
Despite persistent advices and prodding, the Complainant failed to state any argument that was specific to the instant RTI Application but prayed that her grounds of the Complaint may be considered.
The CPIO submitted that the Complainant has filed multiple RTI Applications to harp on her grievance that she was not provided with an experience certificate after 10 months of her engagement as a contractual Research/Project Assistant with the University. He further submitted that eventually an experience letter was also issued to her after the constitution of a fact finding committee.
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the Complainant has challenged the reply of the CPIO to para J of the RTI Application stating that she has inferred from the responses to her other RTI Applications that Prof. Shanmugasundaram was paid sometime in the year 2010 and that the Respondent office should have this information which is why she believes that the claim of the CPIO that no information is available for the averred para is wrong. In this context, Complainant has prayed for the intervention of the Commission as well as compensation to be paid to her.
Now, it is brought to the attention of the Complainant that as far as the mandate of the RTI Act is concerned, the CPIO appears to have provided the available information which cannot be deemed as wrong or misleading based on the strength of the material on record.
Further, the relief sought for by the Complainant is outside the scope of adjudication of the Commission under RTI Act and the superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments over the course of time.
In particular, 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 4 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 strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."(Emphasis Supplied) 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) And, more recently, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs. Gurpreet Kaur(W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma's case to emphasize as under:
"8. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the powers of the Commission are confined to the powers as stated in the RTI Act...."
In addition to the aforesaid, it is also pertinent to note that the information sought for at para (J) of the RTI application pertains to the salary related details of a third party, the disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. This observation is in line with a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India 5 Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.
For the said reasons, the merits of CPIO's reply cannot be called into question even otherwise.
Adverting to the aforesaid discussion, no further action is warranted in the matter.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
सरोजपुनहािन) Saroj Punhani (सरोजपु हािन सूचनाआयु%) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा(णतस)या*पत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक/ 6