Central Information Commission
N K Raju vs Bharat Dynamics Ltd. on 30 October, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सचु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/BDLHD/A/2018/166282
In the matter of:
N K Raju
... Appellant
VS
CPIO & SM, C-P&A (Plg. ED)
Bharat Dynamics Ltd. (BDL),
Corporate Office, Plot No. 38-39, TSFC Building,
Nr. ICICI Towers, Financial District,
Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500 032
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 30/06/2018 CPIO replied on : 03/08/2018 First appeal filed on : 27/08/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 08/10/2018 Second Appeal dated : 30/10/2018 Date of Hearing : 29/10/2020 Date of Decision : 29/10/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri A Satesh Chakraborty, DGM & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information/document:
1. Gross amount received by Sri Mujib Pasha Shaik, ITS, CVO, BDL as Performance Related Pay (PRP) for the year 2016-17.
2. Whether the BDL PRP scheme allows payment of PRP to Deputationists i.e. CVO.
3. When was the PRP scheme amended to allow the deputationists to draw PRP.
4. The amendment to draw PRP was prospective or retrospective.1
5. What is the gross amount of PRP drawn by CMD, D(F), D(P), D(T) for the year 2016-17.
6. Copy of proposal submitted to the Board and approval thereof with regard to payment of PRP to present CVO.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has denied the desired information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO denying the information u/s 8(1)(j) if the RTI Act as there is involvement of larger public interest in the matter regarding misuse of public money by the CVO. He further submitted that the drawal of PRP by CVO, BDL is against the PRP Scheme approved by the Board of Directors of BDL. The CVO got the unintended benefit by influencing others for his personal gain. So, the information as asked for should be supplied to him to take up the matter with the concerned authorities.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his earlier reply dated 03.08.2018. He also explained that when the RTI application was filed, at that time Sri Mujib Pasha Shaik was entitled to the payment of PRP and any changes made in the PRP scheme was done after the RTI application was filed.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO for points no. 1, 5 and 6 of the RTI application is proper as the information on these points is covered u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the points no. 2, 3 and 4 raised in the application are not strictly covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. Hence, no relief can be given on these points also.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission does not find any scope of giving relief in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna(वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयक् ु त) 2 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दिन ंक/ Date 3