Central Information Commission
Praveen Kumar Shrivastav vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 2 November, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/155196-BJ
CIC/LICOI/A/2017/155792-BJ
Mr. Praveen Kumar Shrivastava
....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
LIC of India, Varanasi Division,
B 12/120, Gauriganj, Bhelupur,
Varanasi - 221001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.11.2018
Date of Decision : 02.11.2018
Date of RTI application 15.05.2017
CPIO's response 27.05.2017
Date of the First Appeal 16.06.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 21.07.2017
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 09./10.08.2017
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding copy of his appointment letter, experience certificate and termination letter along with the copy of attendance register in respect of his employment as a "Temporary Assistant" in LIC Office, CBO-1, Varanasi during the period from 01.12.1988 to 15.02.1989 and 21.02.1989 to 31.03.1989 etc. The CPIO, vide letter dated 27.05.2017 provided a point-wise information to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the of CPIO's reply, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 21.07.2017 stated that the information sought for the desired period was not available with them and hence the same could not be furnished to the Applicant.
Page 1 of 6HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Praveen Kumar Shrivastava through VC;
Respondent: Smt. Shipra Nag, CPIO /Manager (L&HPF) through VC;
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the desired information was not provided, till date. He flashed a copy of the experience certificate in his possession. The Respondent informed the Commission that being old record, it was not possible for them to locate these papers. However, in the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 the concerned department had made a diligent search to trace out the records available but since the subject matter was very old; nothing could be traced, so far.
At the outset, the Commission observed that consequent upon the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6950 of 2009 dated 18.03.2015 directing the Respondent Public Authority (LIC) to frame a scheme for regularization of those employees who were granted ad-hoc appointment for 85 days at intervals from time to time, a large number of such applications were being received in the Commission with the intended objective to seek information from the Public Authority certifying that the Appellant/Complainant had worked for specified number of days on a temporary/contractual/casual basis to prove their bonafide for securing a regular employment with the LIC. Furthermore, the Curative Petition No. 23 of 2017, etc filed by the LIC of India were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 22.02.2017. Therefore, the Commission had sympathetically viewed all such applications to maintain consistency in deciding these matters.
A reference was drawn to the judgments of the Commission in similar such matters as under:
Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/152401-BJ dated 29.10.2018, Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/151092-BJ dated 11.10.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/603849-BJ dated 11.10.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/147409-BJ dated 09.10.2018, Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/148984-BJ dated 04.10.2018 Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/132918-
BJ dated 01.10.2018, Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/147277-BJ dated 25.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/140899-BJ dated 20.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/150027-BJ dated 11.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/143439-BJ dated 11.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/142389- BJ dated 10.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/140895-BJ dated 06.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/137464-BJ dated 24.08.2018 CIC/LICOI/A/2017/136203-BJ dated 21.08.2018 Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/133847-BJ dated 01.08.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124555-BJ dated 25.07.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124901-BJ dated 11.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/128260 dated 29.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/129878 dated 27.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/128668 dated 27.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/129878 dated 27.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124896 dated 21.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124901 dated 11.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/126015 dated 05.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124675 dated 05.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124281, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/123124, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124675, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124281, CIC/LICOI/A/2017 /126015, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/122820-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/122821-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/131705-BJ +CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124443-BJ +CIC/LICOI Page 2 of 6 /A/2017/154962 dated 05.06.2018, Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124400-BJ Dated 05.06.2018 CIC/LICOI/A/2017/121923-BJ+CIC/LICOI/A/2017/122904-BJ + CIC/ LICOI/A/2017/122906-BJ dated 25.05.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/ 2017/119849-BJ dated 18.05.2018 CIC/LICOI/A/2017/114808-BJ + CIC/LICOI/A/2017/130667-BJ dated 24.04.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/110899-BJ+CIC/LICOI/A/2017/110879- BJ+CIC/LICOI/A/2017/155095-BJ dated 13.04.2018 CIC/LICOI/A/2017/187460-BJ dated 10.01.2018; etc. etc. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 29.10.2018 wherein it was submitted that the available information had already been provided to the Appellant and therefore, it was prayed to the Commission to reject the Complaint as it would tantamount to waste of the Commission's valuable time.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority.
Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form Page 3 of 6 and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
However, considering the large number of Second Appeals/ Complaints received by the Commission regarding granting of permanent status to temporary employees as per the directives of the Apex Court, the Commission felt that information relating to name of the persons granted appointment in compliance with the aforementioned decision should be disclosed in the public domain for the ease and convenience of all the stakeholders. In this context, the Commission observed that voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."Page 4 of 6
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 "The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission advised the Respondent to re-ascertain the availability of records failing which an affidavit be furnished to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order explaining the factual status in the matter.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
Page 5 of 6 Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) K.L. Das (के .एल.दास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 02.11.2018 Page 6 of 6