Central Information Commission
Mr.Khaja Shariff vs Bhel on 30 September, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No.305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in Tel No:26167931
Case No: CIC/SS/A/2013/000564
30 September, 2013
Name of the Appellant : Shri Khaja Sharif
Name of Respondents : Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
Hyderabad
Date of Hearing : 30.09.2013
ORDER
Shri Khaja Sharif hereinafter called the Appellant has filed the present appeal dated 14.01.2013 before the Commission against the respondent namely Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Haridwar. The Appellant was inperson present in the hearing whereas from the Respondent side, the CPIOShri Sukhvir Singh [Vice Principal/BHELEMB Ranipur (Haridwar Unit)] , Smt. Shreysi Singh [Sr. Executive (Law)], Shri Ashok Sharma [AGM (HR)] and FAAShri Rajender Bisht [Executive (Law)] were present in the hearing.
2. The Appellant through the RTI application dated 15.09.2012 sought information on 5 points as follows: "(a) as per the enclosed letter No: PER/IR/SG/94 dated 3.10.1994 it is mentioned that from 196768 onwards HPEP & SG Operations came under a common administration. Kindly provide the attested copy of proceedings/order etc. for the above effect; (b) Name and Designation of officers/Members attended the above meeting to decide merger as per above letter, Date and venue of such meeting; (c) The Attested copy of letter No: PER/IR/SG/94 dated 3.10.1994 of the General Manager/P&A (HR) of BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, Hyerabad32; (d) The letter of BETUC dated 29.05.1992 as mentioned in enclosed letter; (e) The letter of BETUC dated 29.04.1993."
3. CPIO vide letter no: HY/CPIO/RTI36/201213 dated 08.11.2012 replied point wise to all 5 querries of the Appellant as follows: "(a) It is inform you that in the said letter, it was inadvertently mentioned that from the year 196768 onwards, the HPEP and SG operations came under a common administration with a common balance sheet which is a mistake and factually incorrect. It can be seen from the annual accounts; the balance sheet is common from the year 197475 for both HPEP and SG. Thus, in the said letter, instead of mentioning 197475, it was inadvertently mentioned as 196768. In view of the above, pleased enclosed the copy of Schedules 23 and 24 of the Annual Report for the year 197475 which shows that HPEP and SG operations came under common administration; (b) In view of the reply to Point No.(a) above, this is no applicable: (c) Please find enclosed the attested copy of Letter No: PER/IR/HPEPSG/94 dated 3.10.1994 of the General Manager/P&A (HR) of BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, Huyderabad32 (consisting of 2 pages); (d) & (e) The above correspondence letters of BETUC dated 29.05.1992 and 20.4.1993 are more than 19 years old and are no traceable".
4. Aggrieved with the reply of CPIO the Appellant filed a first appeal dated 05.11.2012 before the FAA in which an order has been passed by the FAA vide his order no:
466/05/11/2012 dated 08.1.2013 as follows: "...The Appellant in his RTI appeal has stated that he had sent a RTI application dated 16.09.2012 through registered post addressed to CPIO, Hyderabad, however, he has not received any reply from the CPIO. This appeal was sent to the office of the CPIO for their comments. The office of the CPIO has replied that information sought by the appellant was provided to her and have provided to the Appellate Committee, a copy of the information already provided to the appellant vide CPIO's decision No:HY/CPIO/RTI36/201213 dated 8.11.2012. He has further informed that he inadvertently mentioned a wrong postal address while sending the reply, due to which the post has returned as "Unclaimed". CPIO has registered the inconvenience caused to the Appellant. Keeping the above inadvertence of the CPIO in view, the Appellant Committer is attaching a copy of the decision of CPIO (along with enclosures) with this order."
5. Being aggrieved with the FAO, Appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission wherein appellant states that incorrect and improper information has been provided to him by the CPIO and FAA.
6. During hearing before the Commission, the Appellant strongly submits that the merger of HPEP and SG Operations took place in the year 196768 and in order to prove his submission the appellant produces a copy of the Annual Report of BHEL for the year 196869 and specifically draws the attention of the Commission to page 32 last para wherein it was mentioned that the Board of Directors of the BHEL decided to merge the HPEP & SG operations as a common operations. On the other hand, the CPIO disputed this fact and submits that though the decision to merge the HPEP and SG operation was contemplated in the year 196768 but in reality the actual merger was in effect from the year 197475 when the resolution in this effect was passed by the Board of Directors of BHEL. CPIO further submits that this Arguments of the Appellant regarding the date of Merger has already been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in his case, (having No: W.P.No.11878 of 1996) Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh made an observation as follows: "In view of the categorical statement filed in the counter Affidavit by BHEL in the Writ Petition that though in 196768 the merger was contemplated under one administration for the purpose of promotions the actual implementation was done during 197475 and all the employees were being promoted based ion the combined seniority lists only prepared for both units since 197575 and there are no separate seniority lists or the units since then. Hence the learned Judge observed that the claim of the petitioner that the HPEP & SG Units merged in 196768 is devoid of merits." The CPIO further submits that the submission of the Appellant has already been rejected and is devoid of any merit which was clear from the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court in his other case relating to a same cause.
7. After hearing the submission of the Appellant and the CPIO and after examining the documents submitted by them, the Commission agrees with the submission of the CPIO that information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided. The Commission finds no reason to interfere with the reply of the CPIO on the RTI Application of the Appellant.
8. With these observations the appeal is disposed of on the part of the commission.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(D.C Singh) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar To:
1. Shri Khaja Sharif, H.No.9462/4, Nizam Colony, Toli Chowk, Hyderabad 500032
2. The CPIO, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad - 502032
3. The Dy. General Manager & AA, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Siri Fort, BHEL House, New Delhi - 110049