Central Information Commission
Gajraj Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 31 December, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DTCOR/A/2018/109520
Shri Gajraj Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/ Dy. Chief General Manager-(South), ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Transport Corporation, (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through: Sh. Inder Pal Singh
Sh. Dinesh Prasad
Sh. Avinash Kumar
Date of Hearing : 16.10.2019
Date of Decision : 30.12.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.09.2017
PIO replied on : 20.10.2017
First Appeal filed on : 08.11.2017
First Appellate Order on : 11.01.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 12.02.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 19.09.2017 seeking information on six points:-
1. Provide the certified copy of his request/application given in the month of September 2000, wherein Appellant had requested for deduction from his salary of Rs. 4000/- under Voluntary Provident Fund.
2. Provide the certified copy of his request of voluntary provident fund(VPF) given by him in the month of August/September 2000.
3. Whether, appellant has made any request to stop the deduction under VPF since April 2001. Provide the certified copy of his request/application.
4. Whether deduction has been made under VPF since September 2000 till December 2001.
5. How many total amount had been deducted under VPF since September 2000 till December 2001.
6. Provide the certified copy of the pay slip since September 2000 till December 2001.Page 1 of 3
PIO/Dy. CGM(S) vide letter dated 20.10.2017 forwarded the reply dated 14.10.2017 to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 08.11.2017. FAA vide order dated 11.01.2018 upheld the reply of PIO and disposed off the First Appeal.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Appellant reiterates the facts and circumstances leading to the present Second Appeal. Appellant submits that the information sought is required to establish that he had never requested for stopping the deduction of VPF from his salary, therefore he was unaware about the same being stopped April 2001 onwards.
Respondent submits that temporary applications including those for deduction of VPF from the salary are given to Pay Bill clerks and are maintained in the Master files, which are destroyed after every 2-3 years, whereas documents relating to the service records of the employees are maintained in their Personal files. Therefore, information sought in queries no. 1 & 2 cannot be provided to the Appellant for being unavailable. Respondent in relying on his submission dated 14.10.2019, which also contains the copies of pay slips of the Appellant from September 2000-December 2001, states that while deductions of Rs. 4000/- towards VPF were made from September 2000-March 2001, no deductions thereof were made from April-December 2001. Since every employee can know the breakup of their pay and the deductions of the month concerned from their monthly pay slips, therefore, the argument of the Appellant that he wasn't aware about the deductions thereof being stopped from April- December 2001 is flawed. Respondent claims that each payslip outlines the gross income, any deductions and the net income, therefore it serves as a legitimate proof of the amount which an employee receives.
Decision:
Commission notes that the present RTI application primarily pertains to the grievance of the Appellant with respect to stopping of VPF deduction from his salary. It is strange that Appellant is now raising these queries, on the pretext that he was unaware about the stopping of deductions from his salary towards VPF, whereas the same can be concluded to have been known to him after perusing the copy of his pay slips. Each pay slip shows employee's salary with a detailed breakdown of salary components, taxes, and deductions etc. The entire purpose of providing a payslip would be rendered useless if an employee would later on argue that he was unaware about the details/breakdown of the salary being provided to him. Thus, the Commission concurs with the reasoning given by the Respondent. The stand taken by the Appellant that he was unaware Page 2 of 3 about the deduction of VFP from his salary is not maintainable since his pay slips clearly state otherwise.
Commission notes that no further adjudication is required in this case. Adequate information has been provided to the Appellant. What remains is the grievance of the Appellant which stems from his ignorance towards what is expected to be known by him, after rendering years of service in a public authority.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 3