Central Information Commission
Mahavir Sharma vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 15 May, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Complaint No. CIC/RM/C/2014/000199
Complainant: Sh. Mahavir Sharma
APIO & DM (OL), HR Section,
Vijay Bhawan, Rawatbhata Rajasthan Site,
Anushakti, Via Kota,
Rajasthan-323303
(9413356747)
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.,
12-N-14, Vikram Sarabhai Bhawan,
Anushakti Nagar,
Mumbai-400094
Date of Hearing: 11.05.2017
Dated of Decision: 11.05.2017
ORDER
Facts:
1. The complainant filed RTI application dated 11.03.2013 which is not on record.
2. The CPIO responded on 16.04.2013. The complainant filed first appeal dated 03.05.2013 with First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 03.06.2013. The complainant filed complaint on 11.02.2014 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him and to invoke Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. Both the parties participated in the hearing through VC.1
4. The complainant had sent his written submissions dated 04.05.2017, which is taken on record.
5. The complainant stated that he had sought information that as to whether the post of Dy. Manager (O) is higher than the post of Hindi Officer in NPCIL setup hierarchy-wise and responsibility-wise. He stated that wrong information was furnished to him on the said point.
6. The complainant stated that as per 5th CPC, the post of Dy. Manager (OL) was carrying pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 while the post of Hindi Officer was carrying pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000. On implementation of 6th CPC, both the posts were placed in the same GP & PB. In NPCIL, Hindi Officer reports to Dy. Manager (OL). Even then, NPCIL started to treat both the posts equal in seniority while OM dated 13.09.2012 of DoPT, GoI clarifies seniority of merged posts/grades.
7. The complainant stated that the deemed PIO, who should have all orders of seniority/DPC under his custody, has supplied him wrong information.
8. The respondent stated that vide their reply dated 16.04.2013, complete and point-wise reply/information has already been furnished to the complainant.
9. The respondent stated that they have informed the complainant on point No. 1 of his RTI application that 'both the posts are having identical PB and GP and hence may be said to be having equal duties and responsibilities. However, there are no guidelines available.
10. The respondent stated that the promotion in their department is based on the personal interview by the competent authority and not based on the seniority list.
Discussion/ observation:
11. The action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI application is satisfactory, as full information has been furnished to the complainant.
12. During the hearing, the complainant had raised his grievances regarding the promotion issue, which does not come under the purview of the RTI Act.
Therefore, no case for penalty has been made out by the complainant.
2Decision:
13. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The complaint is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar 3