Central Information Commission
Hans Raj Atal vs Edcil (India) Limited on 5 September, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/EDCIL/A/2018/160629/01575
File no.: CIC/EDCIL/A/2018/160629
In the matter of:
Hans Raj Atal
... Appellant
VS
CPIO & DGM (HR & Admn.)
EDCIL India Ltd. Corporate Office
EDCIL House, 18-A Sector - 16-A, Noida - 301 201
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 10/05/2018 CPIO replied on : 05/06/2018 First appeal filed on : 27/06/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 30/07/2018 Second Appeal dated : 17/09/2018 Date of Hearing : 05/09/2019 Date of Decision : 05/09/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Mathur, DGM (HR & Admn) and PIO, present in person Information Sought:
The appellant joined EDCIL as an Assistant (post redesignated as "Executive") in the grade of Rs. 425-800 on 01/07/1986. Shri Rajesh Kumar, "Executive" joined EDCIL in the post of Stenographer in the grade of Rs. 425-800 in the year 1988. Being a junior to the appellant, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Executive is drawing higher pay than the appellant which is case of pay anomaly. In regard to this, the appellant has sought the following information:1
1. Date of initial appointment, Basic Pay at the time of appointment of the appellant and Shri Rajesh Kumar may be provided.
2. Whether any Special Increment/Pay has been granted to the appellant and Shri Rajesh Kumar. If yes, provide the date and amount of special increment/pay granted.
3. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is aggrieved as Shri Rajesh Kumar is junior to him but is drawing more salary. He further submitted that at least he should get equal salary.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given vide letter dated 05.06.2018. Moreover, through the grievance mechanism also the appellant was appropriately replied twice.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that an appropriate reply was given.
Decision:
In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 2