Central Information Commission
Shri Nabarun Majumdar vs National Technical Research ... on 12 November, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01060 dated 11.6.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Nabarun Majumdar
Respondent - National Technical Research Organization
Decision announced: 12.11.2009
Facts:
By an application of 22.6.07 Shri Nabarun Majumdar of Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi sought the following information from Shri S. Prabhu, Chief of Administration, National Technical Research Organization, New Delhi:
"1. In this regard I want to know what is the process of arranging the list of Casual Monitors and please provide me the documentary evidences of the list of casual monitors since April 2004 to march 2007. (Query No.1).
2. Let me know what is the process of an Entrance Exam imposed on to working professional in any government services. (Query No. 2).
3. What are the bases of these kinds of decisions that were implemented by Mr. M. L. Kachroo and Mr. M. P. Roy in choosing the casual monitors for duties? (Query No. 3).
4. Let me know the process of selecting Casual Monitors and Casual Editors and how is it justified by the Director of CMS and why should not Mr. M. L. Kachroo and Mr. M. P. Roy be punished for an illegal process (Query No. 4).
5. Last year payment for the month of March 2006 was made in 27th July 2006. What are the bases of such delayed payment and why would not the person responsible for such a delayed payment system would not be punished. (Query No. 5)."
To this Shri Nabarun Majumdar received a reply dated 24.7.07 from Shri S. Prabhu, Controller of Administration and CPIO, NTRO:
"1. The duty roster of casual monitors which has been referred to by you as a list is prepared on monthly basis for assigning duties to causal employees. The roster for casual monitors 1 has been seen by you and accordingly you had worked in this office from 16 to 31 August 2006.
2. It is incorrect to say that the examination is imposed on the working professional in any govt services. Anybody could decide not to appear at all in any examination.
3. The number of days a casual monitor is detailed depends on the task involved, availability of monitors in a particular language and the performance of the monitor.
4. The process of selecting casual monitors and editors is based on the criteria of tasks involved availability of casual monitors/ editors in particular language and past performance of causal monitors and editors. The other part of query is not in nature of seeking information but of opinion. Hence, the same is not provided.
5. The payment to causal monitors has been made on regular and timely basis. However, payment for all causal monitors between October 2005 and February, 2006 was made in May, 2006 and for the month of March, 2006 in July, 2006 on account of administrative reason."
Upon this Shri Majumdar made an appeal on 24.8.07 charting out the information sought, the reply received and his comments, concluding with the plea for, "A proper reply to all my queries in a proper manner at the earliest. I would also like to request you to inform me the date and time of the hearing of the matter which, I want to personally attend."
In his response Shri Prabhu Controller of Administration has once more provided a reply through his order of 24.9.07 held as follows:
"The position on his each query is explained hereunder:Reply to Query No. 1
The contention of Shri Majumdar that each Casual Monitor is expected to work to a maximum number of 120 days in a year is not solely correct. The assignment given to a Casual Monitor is based on several factors including the work performance, punctuality, attitude towards assignment and the task involved. Due to his indifferent performance, casual approach towards the assignment and poor punctuality, he was not given work to the maximum permissible period in a year. No preferential treatment was given to any one.2 Reply to Query No. 2
His contention that the letter for entrance examination was sent to him only is also not correct. In fact 30 Bengali knowing candidates were called for the test along with Shri Nabarun Majumdar, out of which 15 had appeared. However, the Boss (Mr. Hassan) referred to by Shri Majumdar is a wrong name as none by this name had ever worked in CMS.Reply to Query No. 3
Reply to the query has already been answered in our reply to his query No. 1.Reply to Query No. 4
The list of Casual Monitors is maintained in a professional manner and their performance is reviewed from time to time and the services of those not found up to the standard are utilized for a limited period. As per the practice, Monitors who do not perform well were also verbally informed of their deficiencies.Reply to Query No. 5
The process of payment to the Casual Monitors has been streamlined."
Appellant Shri Nabarun Majumdar's prayer in his second appeal is as below:
"Please order the CPIO to provide complete information within seven working days without charging any fee as the CPIO has not provided the information within stipulated period. As the CPIO has not provided complete information so far, the commission is also requested to impose a penalty under section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also order for the departmental disciplinary proceedings under section 20 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Subsequently, in a letter of 19.5.08 this Commission informed appellant Shri Nabarun Majumdar that the NTRO has since been included in the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act and as such the provisions of RTI Act shall not apply to NTRO unless the information pertains to allegations of corruption or human rights violations. In view of this, the Commission had decided that "the appeal filed by you is not maintainable and the same has been rejected." In a representation of 11.6.08, however, Shri Majumdar has submitted as follows:
3"You must be aware of the fact that much later after Second Appeal it is only on 28th March, 2008 decision was announced that of inclusion of NTRO into the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and thus the provisions of RTI Act shall not apply."
Shri Nabarun Majumdar has also sought to justify making this appeal notwithstanding the listing in the Second Schedule, on the following grounds:
"If you see through my appeal you can easily make out that it definitely pertains to corrupt processes of preferential treatment and very much depleting my Human Rights."
The appeal was heard on 22.10.09. The following appeared before us in the hearing:
Respondents Mr. R. N. Gupta, IPS, Controller of Admn) Lt. Col. M. V. Ganapathy, Dy. Dir. (Admn) Mr. S. K. Sharma, Consultant Mr. Ram Kumar, A.D. When contacted on the telephone, appellant Shri Nabarun Majumdar submitted that he was at present in Chandigarh and had not received the hearing notice. When asked whether he would be willing to be heard by audio conference, he submitted that he was not carrying the papers and, therefore, requested for an adjournment. Respondents have no objection to the adjournment.
However, Shri R. N. Gupta, Controller of Administration, NTRO submitted that in his appeal before us appellant Shri Nabarun Majumdar has prayed as follows:
"If you see through my appeal you can easily make out that it definitely pertains to corrupt processes of preferential treatment and very much depleting my Human Rights."
Shri Gupta submitted that this plea would amount to appellant accepting that the NTRO is exempt from the application of the RTI u/s 24(1) 4 In the present case, the issue before us is simple. At the time that the RTI application was moved NTRO was not an exempt Organization, since it had not been listed in the Second Schedule. This Organization was listed in the Second Schedule, as per GSR No. 235(E) dated 27.3.08 whereas the present request was moved on 22.6.07. However, in exempting this information, Govt. has surely found the NTRO to be an Organization meriting listing among the Intelligence & Security Organizations, which are outside the purview of the RTI Act. The issue before us, therefore, is that if the NTRO is such an organization, should it be subjected to the scrutiny of the RTI Act even at the time it had not been listed in the Second Schedule. To enable us to determine this issue, the hearing is adjourned to 12th November 2009 at 4.00 p.m. Should he wish, appellant Shri Nabarun Majumdar can appear before us in Chandigarh through video conference.
Subsequently in a letter of 24.10.09 Lt. Col. M. N. Ganapathy, Dy. Director (Admn) NTRO has informed us as follows:
"Shri R. N. Gupta presently working as Comptroller of Administration, in place of Shri S. Prabhu who has since been repatriated to his parent cadre, supported by Lt. Col. M. V. Ganapathy, Deputy Director (Admn.) and CPIO, and Shri S. K. Sharma, Consultant, CMS, who had assisted the CPIO, National Technical Research Organisation, will be attending the hearing on 22.10.2009 at the appointed time 11.00 AM."
The appeal was then heard on 12.11.2009. The following are present:
Appellant Sh. Nabarun Majumdar Respondents Mr. R. N. Gupta, IPS, Controller of Admn.
Lt. Col. M. V. Ganapathy, Dy. Dir. (Admn) Mr. S. K. Sharma, O.S.D. CMS Mr. Ram Kumar, O.S.D. Admn.
Shri R. N. Gupta, Controller of Administration, NTRO submitted that since the NTRO has already provided such information as it held to appellant Shri Majumdar, it will not take the plea of exemption u/s 24(1). Appellant Shri 5 Majumdar on the other hand submitted that the responses to his questions amount to evasion rather than providing information. Accordingly, the questions were examined one by one. From this it would appear that only question No. 1, which has a second part wherein Sh. Majumdar has sought documentary evidence of the list of casual monitors for April 2004 to March 2007, not been responded to. Shri S. K. Sharma, OSD CMS placed before us copies of the list of Casual Monitors for 2005-06 and 2006-07.
On the remaining questions, the appellant Shri Majumdar was asked what further information he sought to which he responded by saying that the intern examination was indeed imposed on him even though the CPIO has informed him that it cannot be so imposed. He also wished to know how he would be recompensed for the delay in payment, which had been admitted by the CPIO.
DECISION NOTICE The RTI Act is not an act for grievance redress. What emerges from the hearing is that both in terms of question No. 2 and 5 grievance redress are what appellant Shri Majumdar seeks. For this purpose he would have to make a representation to Central Director of CMS who is responsible for the administration. On the other hand, it is correct that appellant has indeed asked for "the documentary evidence of the listing of casual monitors for the period April 2004 to March, 2007" but in the CPIO's response, only the period 16th to 31st August, 2006 has been referred to. It is not enough that the appellant may or may not have seen the rosters. Under the RTI Act, this has to be provided if asked for.
Although the NTRO is now outside the purview of the RTI Act, it was not so when the present application was moved. Respondents have also not argued against the disclosure of information sought by appellant in the present case, but only that the information provided, was in their view adequate. For this reason 6 the present CPIO Shri S. K. Sharma will provide to appellant Shri Nabarun Majumdar copies of the roster for the period requested within ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice. To this extent, the appeal is allowed. There will be no costs.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 12.11.2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 12.11.2009 7