Central Information Commission
Tejinder Pal Singh vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) on 22 September, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या/Complaint No.: CIC/SAIL1/C/2022/637383
Tejinder Pal Singh ...शिकायतकताा/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
General Manager-(Pers.) & CPIO,
Steel Authority of India Limited,
Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan,
Administrative Building, Bokaro Steel City,
Bokaro-827001 (Jharkhand).
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Deputy General Manager-(Pers.) & CPIO,
Steel Authority of India Limited, Corporate Office (C.O.),
SAIL, Scope Minar, 20th Floor, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-110092.
...प्रततवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 21.04.2022
CPIO replied on : 05.05.2022
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Complaint received at CIC : 12.07.2022
Date of Hearing : 04.09.2023
Date of Decision : 14.09.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 7
Information sought:
The Complainant sought following information:
1. Wage revision has been implemented on the basis of DPE guidelines or SAIL Board decision or both.
2. The applicable date of Wage revision as per DPE guidelines/SAIL Board Decision
3. Indicate the extent of coverage of the Executives population under this Wage Revision i.e. all executives on the rolls of SAIL on applicable date or only a part thereof.
4. If a part of the executive population was covered for implementation of the pay revision, indicate the basis of exclusion of balance population of the executives (on applicable date) from the benefits of Pay Revision in terms of reference/relevant DPE guidelines/SAIL Board decision (Kindly attach relevant document).
5. Whether DPE guidelines included any debarring clause for any section of executives w.r.t. Executives on roll on due date of wage revision. If so, attach relevant document.
6. Indicate the basis on which retirement benefits (in terms of Enhanced Basic/DA and payment towards leave encashment at the revised rate) were paid to executives who got retired after 01.04.2020, while no such benefits were accorded to executives retired between due date of pay revision to March'20.
• CPIO furnished reply, dated 05.05.2022, as under:
1. Salary revision of executives holding Board Level and below Board posts in SAIL is in pursuance of the 'Presidential Directives' received from the Government of lndia, Ministry of Steel and Board decision.
2. The revised scale of pay is effective from 01.01.2017.
3. The revision of the scales of pay / allowances will cover all executives holding Board level and below Board level posts of SAIL Steel Plants / Units. The executives who were on the rolls of the Company as on OL.OL.2077 and continue to.be on the rolls of the Company on 01.04.2020 will be fitted in the corresponding revised scales of pay effective from 01.01.2017.
4,5 & 6. The coverage is as per corporate office order Ref:
PER/EC/1213/2017 dated 8.11.2017 (Copy of the document is attached herewith).Page 2 of 7
• Dissatisfied with the information furnished, Complainant filed First Appeal vide letter dated 07.05.2022 • FAA vide order dated 16.05.2022 held as under :
".....It is noted that in response to the information sought by the applicant vide his RTI application received, a reply has been furnished by CPIO on dated 29.04.2022. The appeal has examined and the information received from the concerned department is enclosed in 04(Four) pages.
The appeal is hereby disposed..."
• Dissatisfied with the information furnished, Complainant filed instant complaint.
• Written submission dated 'Nil' has been received from the Complainant as under:
1. SAIL implemented Wage Revision for its Executive Employees vide Office Order No.- PER/EC/121312017 dt. 18.11.2021. which limited its scope to Executives on roll as on 01.01.2017 and continue to be on rolls as on 01.04.2020. quoting a 'Presidential Directive' received from Ministry of Steel, issued vide Ref.- S-2902694/2021-SAIL dt18.11.2021.
2. Authorised Signatory of this letter of Ministry of Steel.
reiterates in the opening para of the letter. 'I am directed to refer to SAIL's letter No. PER/EC/1213 dt.2.11.2021 on the subject mentioned above to say that the President is pleased to direct the Chairman to implement revision of pay and allowances of Board Level and below Board Level Executives in SAIL strictly as per guidelines issued by DPE vide OM No. W-02/002812017- DPE(WC)-GL-XIII/17 dt. 03.08.2017, 04.08.2017 and 04.09.2017' and subsequently went on to add the condition of limiting the scope of implementation of Wage Revision.
3. Here it may be noted that keeping date of notional fitment from 01.01.2017, actual date for calculation purposes has been changed to 01.04.2020, thereby excluding a large chunk of Executive Population who were on the rolls of the company between 01.01.2017 & 31.03.2020. DPE in its guidelines (as quoted above) which were sacrosanct for Wage Revision implementation; nowhere talks of any exclusion. It is only the input from SAIL, which was sent from SAIL to Ministry of Steel vide letter - PEFUEC/1213 dt.2.11.2021, for approval, introduced this clause of 'Limiting the Scope of Implementation'.
4. No explanation has been put forth by SAIL Authorities (through their RTI interface) for denying even notional fitment benefits to the Executives Retired between 01.01.2017 and Page 3 of 7 31.03.2020, causing a huge loss in terms of settlement of Superannuation benefits at pre revised wage rates. Considering above, the 'Respondent' may be directed to make available to the 'Appellant' (i.e. myself) a copy of complete notings (including Annexures if any) of the file sent by SAIL to Ministry of Steel vide Ref. PER/EC/1213 dt.2.11.2021, to examine and understand the rationale behind Limiting of the Scope of Implementation of Wage Revision' before proceeding further with the case.
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO, SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant vide letter dated 27.07.2023. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
1. Shri Tejinder Pal Singh filed online RTI application which was received in the office of CPIO on 22.04.2022' The CPIO forwarded the query to concerned department on 23.04.02022. After receipt of reply from concerned department the reply was submitted by PIO on 29.04.2022.
2. The appellant preferred online first appeal received in the office of FAA, BSL on 07.05.2022 and the reply by the First Appellate Authority was sent/submitted on 16.05.2022 (copy enclosed).
3. Like to bring in the kind notice that in the RTI query the applicant seek "clarification on the reasons of exclusion"
and also in 2nd appeal to get the benefits & examination at the hon'ble CIC end. Humble submission to the Hon'ble CIC is that the sought "clarification" "reasons" etc are not as per the definition of section 2(f) of the Act, 2005. But the applicant being our ex-executive we have provide the office order. The 2.3.1 clause of the office order reads as "The executive who were on the rolls of Company as on 01.01.2017 and continue to be on the rolls of the Company on 01.04.2020 will be fitted in the corresponding revised scales of pay as per the following fitment methodology "
The applicant does not fall in this parameter. The office order was issued from our corporate office.."
Grounds for Complaint The PIO has not provided information to the Complainant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -Page 4 of 7
Complainant: Present Respondent: 1. Mr. Dheeraj K. Tiwari, SAIL, New Delhi
2. Ms. Babita (Pers) SAIL, New Delhi
3. Ms.Anju Singh,GM(Personnel),CPIO,SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant.
The Complainant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish the information as sought.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that point wise reply has been furnished to the Complainant within stipulated time. Furthermore, the Complainant has sought clarification, reasons etc which does not fall under the ambit of 'information' as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Complainant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO within the prescribed time limit of the RTI Act, 2005 . Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Page 5 of 7 Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaints u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 20 of the Act. No further action lies.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया)
Page 6 of 7
Information Commissioner (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानितसत्यानितप्रनत)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाि ग्रोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 7 of 7