Manish Chandra Pathak vs Mecon Limited on 21 October, 2024

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Manish Chandra Pathak vs Mecon Limited on 21 October, 2024

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                              के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                     Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                     Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                      नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MECON/A/2023/147676.

Shri MANISH CHANDRA PATHAK.                                ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                          VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                   ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
MECON Limited.


Date of Hearing                      :   14.10.2024
Date of Decision                     :   14.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner       :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :      13.09.2023
PIO replied on                    :      10.10.2023
First Appeal filed on             :      13.10.2023
First Appellate Order on          :      17.11.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :      26.12.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.09.2023 seeking information on following points:-

"1. Kindly provide information as to which authority has approved the so called revised structure of my pay as mentioned in letter of CGM/(HR) (who is also holding the position of CPIO) dated 11.09.2023 of CGM (HR). Kindly provide the copy of the approval of Management/CMD/Director (taken if any) for such revision of pay structure based on which letter dated 11.09.2023 has been issued. 2. Since the basic pay appears to have been increased in terms of the para 6 of the letter dated 11.09.2023, please inform whether proportionate contribution of employer towards PF and MecGPS is also covered and to be paid/deposited in terms of this letter. If yes, please provide calculation thereof as the same has not been provided with the letter along with proof of such payment/deposit. 3. Whether any interest is also payable /paid for the delayed payment in any of the component mentioned in letter dated 11.09.2023 (i.e salary arrears, employer contribution of PF, contribution of MecGPS (if any))."

The CPIO, CGM(HR) vide letter dated 10.10.2023 replied as under:-

"1. Concerned Appointing Authority as Delegation of power manual. The documents pertain to internal records of the company which does not Page 1 of 3 warrant larger public interest and hence cannot be shared under RTI Act, 2005.

2. Since the basic and DA arrears has been paid in the month of September 2023, so the PF contribution on account of arrears to be paid in the month of October 2023. Contribution towards MECGPS to be paid in the next due,

3. Whenever any arrear arises, it is paid immediately, hence there is no question of interest payment.

4. Yes.

5. Yes.

6. No."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.10.2023. The FAA, CGM(Structural) vide order dated 17.11.2023 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri Ravindra Aggarwal, Sr.GM(HR) & CPIO The brief background of the Case is that Appellant had joined MECON Limited as a lateral entrant at E-4 level. Prior to joining MECON, he was working with Engineers India Ltd. (EIL, A CPSE under Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas). The selection of the Appellant was pursuant to the advertisement published by MECON in Jan/Feb 2018 in relation to which interviews were conducted. Immediately after joining MECON Limited, the Appellant found some discrepancies in his pay structure.

The Appellant had filed RTI seeking information related to his revised pay structure.

During the hearing the CPIO submitted that the Appellant had sought internal records of the company which does not warrant larger public interest. Hence the same was denied to the Appellant.

The Appellant submitted that he does not intends to procure documents which are internal records of the company rather, the information sought by him related to his pay structure. Hence the denial by the CPIO is inappropriate.

Decision:

Commission based on the averment made by the parties during hearing, directs the CPIO to provide another opportunity to the Appellant or his authorized representative, to inspect available and relevant records pertaining to the Appellant specifically as sought in the instant RTI Application at Point No.2, on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and/or in writing. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided upon payment of prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. However, no information shall be furnished by the CPIO, to the Appellant, which is exempted from disclosure under section 8 Page 2 of 3 & 9 RTI Act, 2005. & same must be redacted or blacked out under section 10 RTI Act, 2005 prior to the said inspection.

The said direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission within 01 week by the CPIO thereafter. In the light of above directions, the Commission does not find any merits for the further intervention in the present appeal. Thus, the present appeal stands disposed off with the direction to the CPIO.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission