Central Information Commission
Ajay Kumar vs Broadcast Engineering Constulatants ... on 27 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/BECIL/A/2024/618804
Ajay Kumar .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO under RTI, Broadcast
Engineering Consultants India
Ltd., BECIL Bhawan, C-56/A-17,
Sector-62, NOIDA-201307
(Uttar Pradesh). ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.11.2025
Date of Decision : 26.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.03.2024
CPIO replied on : 18.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 29.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 25.04.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.03.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
I am writing to request information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding a discrepancy in the salary offered by BECIL in relation to the advertised salary range for a specific position IT Associate Advertisement No 412 GRAC. As per the advertisement Page 1 of 4 File No: CIC/RNIND/A/2024/115094 posted by BECIL, the salary range for the position in question, requiring 5 years of experience, was mentioned to be between 50,000 to 70,000 per month. However, the selected candidate, who has over 7 years of experience in the same domain, was offered a salary of only 40,000 per month. The candidate, at the time of the interview, disclosed that their last salary was 60,000 per month, and they had received another job offer for 65,000 per month. During the interview process, the candidate explicitly communicated their interest in joining BECIL only if provided a salary of 70,000 per month. I would like to obtain the following information:
1. A copy of the advertisement for mentioned position, including details of the specified salary range.
2. Documentation regarding the selection process and criteria for determining the final salary offered to the candidate.
3. Any internal communication, memos, or notes related to the negotiation or discussion of the candidates salary during the interview process.
4. Any policies or guidelines that BECIL follows when determining the salary for selected candidates.
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.03.2024 stating as under:
1. Copy of the advertisement is attached.
2. Result published on BECIL website. Copy attached for ready reference
3. Appointment letter fixing salary in accordance with Advertisement No.412 published.
4. Salaries are offered by Principal Employer as per its recommendation on the basis of Qualification and relevant experience for the post.
Accordingly BECIL advertises its on BECIL website.
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 25.04.2024, held as under:
Shri Ajay Kumar has preferred an Appeal under section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 against Provided Incomplete, Misleading or False Information sought by him vide his RTI Application Registration under BECIL/R/E/23/00032 dated 02.03.2024. Respond has been provided by the CPIO on 18.03.2024.
I have examined the appeal. The information sought by the Appellant was already provided by the CPIO on 18.03.2024. The RTI Appeal is not based on RTI Request. As such it cannot be entertained as of now. With the issue of this Order, the Appeal is disposed off.Page 2 of 4
File No: CIC/RNIND/A/2024/115094
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Harmon Sharma, AGM(admin)/CPIO- participated in the hearing.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 06.05.2024 is not available on record.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Page 3 of 4 File No: CIC/RNIND/A/2024/115094 Copy To:
The FAA, Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd, BECIL Bhawan, C56/A17, Sec-62, Noida - 201307 Page 4 of 4 File No: CIC/RNIND/A/2024/115094 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)