Central Information Commission
K Chandrasekaran vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 8 December, 2025
.के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/628962
K Chandrasekaran .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO under RTI,
Sr. Dy. General Manager-(HR) & PIO,
Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd, Human
Resource Management, Trichy Main
Office Road, Tiruchirapalli-620014
(Tamil Nadu). .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.12.2025
Date of Decision : 08.12.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 19.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 29.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 04.05.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.02.2024 (online) seeking the following information:Page 1 of 9
File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/628962
1. Please provide a Copy of BHEL Employees Pension Scheme along with Amendments.
2. Please provide data for under which Rule in the BHEL Pension Scheme, K. Chandrasekaran, Staff No. 2089130, Retd., AGM, BHEL, Trichy, was called by HR - Welfare, BHEL, Trichy on 04/10/2012 as an eligible Employee to fill in and submit the Application Form which was received by HR on 04/10/2012.
3. In which Month and Year the Pension Corpus was paid to the Annuity / Pension Providers in respect of those Employees who retired in February 2011 in BHEL, Trichy?
4. Please provide the Rule in the Pension Scheme by which the payment of Pension Corpus to the Annuity Provider was stopped in Oct 2012 by BHEL, Trichy, with respect to K. Chandrasekaran, Staff No. 2089130.
5. Who is the Competent Authority for those Employees in the rank of AGMs for stopping the payment of Pension Corpus?
6. Was any Show Cause Notice was issued to him and if so, please furnish a Copy of the Show Cause Notice and the reply sent by him.
7. Please provide a Copy of Approval Note for stopping the Pension Application Processing as communicated vide Letter Ref. BHEL: Pension :
2012 / 2089130 dated 19/10/2012 by the Dy. Manager / HR- Welfare ( Pension Cell ) to him.
8. What action was taken by BHEL on his letter dated 29/10/2012 wherein he has stated that he has not filed any Case against BHEL?
9. If his Pension Corpus was stopped under Rule 14-A-Eligibility- Annex. II, of the BHEL Pension Scheme, (on the ground that he has filed a Case in a Court against BHEL), please furnish the following details: a) Case No. / Year. b) Court in which Case was filed. c) Subject matter of the Case. d) Copy of the Petition / Counter filed by BHEL.
10.Vide letter No. BHEL Pension : 2089130 dated 13/01/2016, it was communicated by BHEL, Trichy that "...decision regarding release of your pension corpus can be decided only on conclusion of the proceedings at the Supreme Court". Please furnish the following details about the SC Appeal Case cited in that letter : a) Rule under which this decision was taken. b) Copy of Note of Approval. c) Case No. / Year d) Parties to the Case. e) Copy of the Petition /Appeal, Reply / Counter Affidavit, by BHEL, etc.
11.On what date the Pension Corpus due to K. Chandrasekaran, Staff no.
2089130 was paid by BHEL to HDFC LIFE, the Annuity / Pension Provider after the release of the SC Judgement on 15/06/2023?
Page 2 of 9File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/628962
12.Please provide following details with reference to SDGM / HR- Welfare, BHEL, Trichy, letter dated 20/11/2023, wherein it is stated: "In your case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has released the Judgement of acquittal only on 15/06/2023, and as such you are entitled for the Pension only after the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court".
a) Which Rule in the Pension Scheme warrants that the payment of Pension Corpus shall be payable only after the SC Judgement dated 15/06/2023?
b) Copy of Approval Note for releasing the Pension Corpus only after the SC Judgement on 15/06/2023 and not payable for the earlier period from Dec 2012 to Aug 2023 in respect of K. Chandrasekaran.
c) If the matter was referred to Corporate Office, furnish Copies of mails / letters sent to Corporate Office and their Reply received.
d) If any Legal opinion was obtained for payment of Pension Corpus only after the SC Judgement Date by BHEL, Trichy or Corporate Office, please provide a Copy of the same.
13) Please provide details about who held the Pension Corpus Amount of K. Chandrasekaran from October 2012 to Aug 2023 by which BHEL must have earned Interest during this Period?
14) Please provide a Copy of Note approved by the Competent Authority rejecting the Appeal of K. Chandrasekaran for the compensation for the Pension Amount not paid to him during the Period Oct 2012 / Nov 2012 / Dec 2012 until Aug 2023 irrespective of the fact that the SC Case was not a Case filed by him against BHEL.
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.03.2024 stating as under:
1. Reply for query 1: Copy of BHEL Employees Pension Scheme is available in 14 pages. Hence you are required to pay a sum of Rs 28/- towards additional fees by way of Indian Postal Order / Demand Draft drawn in favour of CPIO, BHEL, Trichy. On receipt of the above fee, the above details would be furnished.
2. Reply for query 2: BHEL Pension Scheme Annexure-I Rule 4(1)
3. Reply for query 3: The query is generic in nature. Ascertaining the details for each case and collating the same is not possible without diverting the public resources disproportionately. Hence the Page 3 of 9 File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/628962 information sought is exempted under Section 7(9) of Right to Information Act, 2005.
4. Reply for query 4: Copy of letter dated 19/10/2012 is enclosed and the same is self-explanatory.
5. Reply for query 5: The query is in the nature of eliciting views and opinion from CPIO. Hence the CPIO is of view that no "information" is sought within the ambit of RTI Act.
6. Reply for query 6: No.
7. Reply for query 7: Information sought is not available.
8. Reply for query 8: Information sought is not available.
9. Common Reply for query 9 & 10: The queries are in the nature of eliciting views and opinion from CPIO. Hence the CPIO is of view that no "information" is sought within the ambit of RTI Act, 2005.
10.Reply for query 11: Information sought is not available with Trichy unit.
11.Reply for query 12: The query sought in 12 (a) is in the nature of eliciting views and opinion from CPIO. Hence the CPIO is of view that no "information" is sought within the ambit of RTI Act. As regards the query 12(b), (c) & (d), the same are not available.
12.Reply for query 13: The query sought is in the nature of eliciting views and opinion from CPIO. Hence the CPIO is of view that no "information" is sought within the ambit of RTI Act.
13.Reply for query 14: Information sought is not available.
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 04.05.2024, held as under:
The appellant has contended that CPIO has forwarded the query to CPIO BHEL Delhi and that reply was not received from CPIO BHEL Delhi. However, on perusal of reply furnished by CPIO, it is seen that all 13 queries were replied by CPIO as per the provisions of RTI Act and none of the query was forwarded to CPIO BHEL Trichy. Hence there are no merits in the said grounds of appeal.
In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that "CPIO provided incomplete, misleading or false information". The appellant has not specifically brought out any points or grounds of appeal as to how the reply of CPIO for each query is incomplete, misleading or false information. Hence I find no reason to interfere with the order of CPIO.
In the light of the above, the reply of CPIO does not suffer from any infirmity.Page 4 of 9
File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/628962 The appeal is accordingly disposed of on 04/05/2024.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. Written submission dated 25.11.2025 has been received from Shri C. Arockiasamy, Addl. General Manager and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
1. "..The Central Public Information Officer submits that the appeal made by the appellant is neither maintainable in law nor on facts.
2. The appellant had raised 14 queries in his RTI Application. The present appeal is made only against the reply furnished by CPIO for query nos.3, 5, 9, 10, 12(a) and 13.
3. The brief background of the case is that appellant is an ex-employee of BHEL, Trichy and he retired from service on 24/02/2011. During his service, CBI filed a chargesheet against the appellant for criminal conspiracy to cheat BHEL and criminal misconduct in the matter of award of contract.
By Judgment dated 08.09.2006, the CBI Court found the appellant and others guilty and imposed the following sentences:
Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default RI for 6 months - Section 109 read with 420 IPC (abetment & cheating) RI for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default RI for 6 months - Section 468 IPC (forgery) RI for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default RI for 6 months - Section 471 read with 468 IPC (using a forged document as genuine) RI for 1 year - Section 193 IPC (giving false evidence) Challenging the above order, the appellant filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the appellant retired from service on 24/02/2011 and his BHEL pension corpus was not released in view of the pendency of above appeal before Supreme Court. Later on 15/06/2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court passed orders acquitting the appellant from all the charges. Thereafter appellant submitted the pension claim on 04.07.2023 and the same was immediately processed by BHEL and he has been receiving pension from July 2023 onwards.
4. However, the appellant claimed pension arrears for the period from December 2012 till July 2023 and the same was rejected by BHEL as the same is not permissible under BHEL pension scheme. In respect of the said rejection letter, he has made several queries in the present RTI Application.
Most of the queries are in the nature of seeking opinion/further clarification / reasons for rejection of his claim for pension arrears from Page 5 of 9 File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/628962 CPIO and the same does not fall within the purview of RTI Act. More importantly, the appellant has filed a writ petition (WP No.27385 of 2024) before the Hon'ble Madras High Court against BHEL Trichy on this subject matter that is, claiming the pension arrears including interest amount from December 2012 till July 2023 and the same is pending before Hon'ble High Court. Hence the matter is sub-judice.
3. The submissions of CPIO for each query are as follows:
(a) Query No.3:
Appellant has sought the detail as to in which month and year the pension corpus was paid to the annuity/pension providers in respect of those employees retired in February 2011 in BHEL, Trichy. The query is generic in nature. Appellant has sought the details of pension corpus paid to all the retirees in February 2011. The details are not readily available and ascertaining the said details for each retiree from their respective personal records and collating the same is not possible without diverting the public resources disproportionality. Hence the information sought is exempted under Section 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005.
(b) Query No.5:
Appellant has sought the details of competent authority for those employees in the rank of AGM for stopping the pension corpus. The requested information is not available in any material form. Furnishing reply to the same necessitates forming of an opinion by CPIO after analyzing the case of appellant vis-à-vis the applicable rules and regulations of the company. Hence there is no need to interfere with the order of CPIO.
(c) Query No.9 & 10:
Appellant has sought the details of the appeal filed by him before the Hon'ble Supreme Court like the case no. year, court, subject matter, parties to the case and copy of petition / reply filed by BHEL It is the appellant who has filed the appeal challenging the conviction order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the requested details like case no.. court, subject matter and parties to the case are already in his possession.
In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has alleged that he has not filed any case against BHEL hence the stand taken by BHEL is incorrect. The appellant is seeking redressal of grievances through RTI Act which is outside the scope of RTI Act. As stated above, the appellant has filed Writ Petition No.27385 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Madras High Court challenging our rejection letter on the pension arrears from December 2012 till July 2023 and the same is pending before Hon'ble High Court. Hence the matter is sub-judice.Page 6 of 9
File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/628962
(d) Query No.11:
The appellant has sought the details of date on which his pension corpus was paid by BHEL to HDFC Life, the annuity provider. The details are not available with BHEL Trichy unit. On verification with our corporate office, it is informed that the pension corpus was transferred to HDFC Life on 14.07.2023.
(e) Query No. 12:
Appellant has sought 3 sub-queries in which he sought clarification on the reply letter dated 20.11.2023 issued by SDGM/HR-Welfare. Under RTI Act, the CPIO is required to provide the information available on records. Seeking further clarification or reasons on the reply letter falls outside the ambit of RTI Act. The details sought in (b) and (c) are not available in any material form.
4. The appeal grounds made by the appellant are in the nature of alleging grievance against public authority and is seeking redressal of his grievance by seeking clarification which is outside the scope of RTI Act. As stated above, the appellant has already filed writ petition on this subject i.e., claiming pension arrears with interest amount and the same is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court.
5. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the reply of CPIO does not suffer from any infirmity and the Second Appeal made by the Appellant is not maintainable.
It is humbly prayed that in the aforesaid backdrop, the second appeal lacks merit and the same may be dismissed..."
6. Written submission dated 28.11.2025 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Ms. Nithya, Manager, HR, BHEL, Trichy- participated in the hearing through video-conference.
7. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 09.07.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that Appellant is an ex-employee of BHEL, Trichy and he retired from service Page 7 of 9 File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/628962 on 24.02.2011. She stated that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Appellant, Shri K. Chandrasekaran. A Memo dated 24.01.2003 was issued for misconduct relating to negligent behavior. Subsequently, on 16.06.2003, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of "Censure." Further, during his service, CBI filed a chargesheet against the Appellant for criminal conspiracy to cheat BHEL and criminal misconduct in the matter of award of contract. By Judgment dated 08.09.2006, the CBI Court found the appellant and others guilty. Challenging the order of CBI court, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the Appellant retired from service on 24.02.2011 and his BHEL pension corpus was not released in view of the pendency of appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Later on 15.06.2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court passed orders acquitting the Appellant from all the charges. Thereafter, Appellant submitted the pension claim on 04.07.2023 and the same was immediately processed by BHEL and he has been receiving pension from July 2023 onwards. However, the Appellant claimed pension arrears for the period from December 2012 till July 2023 and the same was rejected by BHEL as the same is not permissible under BHEL pension scheme. In respect of the said rejection letter, he has made several queries in the present RTI Application. She stated that information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant. Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, notes that the main premise of the instant Second Appeal is non-furnishing of complete information by the CPIO.
10.It is noted that the information sought pertains directly to the Appellant's own pension corpus, financial entitlements, and service-related rights.
Such information is inherently personal to the Appellant and cannot be refused unless covered under an explicit exemption of Section 8(1) or 9 of the RTI Act.
11. The Commission holds that the denial of information by the CPIO was arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act. It is observed that the information sought is necessary for the Appellant to assert and defend his legal rights in matters connected with his pension and arrears. Denial Page 8 of 9 File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/628962 of such information undermines transparency and violates the spirit of the RTI Act, whose Preamble mandates an informed citizenry.
12.Commission observes that information sought at point No. 3, 5, 7, 8, 13 and 14 has not been furnished to the Appellant. It is noted that even during hearing, no cogent reply or explanation for non-furnishing of information in reference to aforementioned points was provided by the CPIO.
13. In view of foregoing, the Commission directs the CPIO, BHEL, Trichy to re- examine the instant RTI Application and furnish a revised reply with respect to point No. 3, 5, 7, 8, 13 and 14 of the RTI Application within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Information exempted shall be redacted/severed as per section 10 of the RTI Act. Information exempted shall be redacted/severed as per section 10 of the RTI Act.
14. FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, AGM-HR, BHEL, Tiruchirappalli - 620014 Page 9 of 9 File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/628962 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)