Central Information Commission
Rajesh vs Broadcast Engineering Constulatants ... on 31 October, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BECIL/A/2022/623586
RAJESH ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Broadcast Engineering
Consultants India Limited, RTI
Cell, BECIL Bhawan, C-56,
A/17, Sector-62, Noida-201301,
Uttar Pradesh .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31/10/2022
Date of Decision : 31/10/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/02/2022
CPIO replied on : 28/03/2022
First appeal filed on : 29/03/2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 13/04/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/04/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.02.2022 seeking the following information:
"I had worked as an Investigator at your office in the month of October 2021 and November 2021 and completed all the work allotted to me and 1 submitted to your office but still my salary for these 2 months has not been release to me. Please tell me why my salary has not been paid to me even after passing almost 3 months?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 28.03.2022 stating as follows:-
"The salary for the month of October, 2021 and November, 2021 has already been transferred to your account as per the terms of employment."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.03.2022. FAA's order dated 13.04.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO and further stated as under:-
"............If you have yet not received the salaries of these months, kindly share your bank statement duly certified by bank for further investigation from BECIL end."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Khuswinder Singh Bhatia, AGM & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO and sought to challenge the claim of payment of salary made to him by urging that the CPIO should have furnished proof of payment as desired by him under different heads in his Second Appeal.
The CPIO submitted that although the Appellant did not respond to the advice of the FAA to approach their office with duly certified bank statement for necessary investigation, now, prior to the hearing, they have enumerated the complete particulars of the payments made to him in October & November, 2021 vide their written submission dated 31.10.2022.
Decision:2
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record observes that the instant case is not as much about seeking access to information as much it is about seeking redressal of a grievance and addressing the contradictory stand taken by both the parties in as much as the Respondent office has maintained their stand that the averred payment was made while the Appellant alleges that it has not been paid.
Now, at this stage, the CPIO has nonetheless sought to allay the apprehensions of the Appellant by providing the complete particulars desired in a tabular format in the grounds of the Second Appeal. The CPIO is directed to send a copy of the said written submissions dated 31.10.2022 to the Appellant by registered/speed post as well as via email.
The Appellant is advised to pursue his grievance before the appropriate forum therefrom by providing the requisite documents as was advised by the FAA. The CPIO is expected to render due assistance to the Appellant in pursuing the said matter in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3