Central Information Commission
Durga Prasad Mishra vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 13 June, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमार्ग,मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/BSNLD/C/2024/617897
Shri Durga Prasad Mishra शिकायतकर्ता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Date of Hearing : 09.06.2025
Date of Decision : 09.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.01.2024
PIO replied on : 27.02.2024
First Appeal filed on : 29.02.2024
First Appellate Order on : 12.04.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 30.04.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.01.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"I hope this message finds you well. As a government pensioner and concerned party, I am writing to submit a follow-up RTI application (No. BSUPE/R/E/23/00157 dated 17.09.2023) in light of recent developments. The basis for this application is the receipt of information in response to my initial request and subsequent inconsistencies identified, particularly regarding the letter from the CCA Office, Lucknow (F no. CCA/UP(E)/Sub Office VNS/Pen/1899 dated 27/10/2023) addressed to GMTD, BSNL, Deoria. In light of this, I kindly request comprehensive details on the following points: Point 1: Annual Verification of Service Book (SR-FR- GFR, SR 202, Section 4.11): Please provide detailed copies of the annual service book verification documents conducted for Shri Durga Prasad Mishra over the past five years from date of retirement, including records of inspection dates, signatures, and certificates of compliance as required by SR-FR-GFR and SR 202, Section 4.11. Point 2: Yearly Service Book Verification (GFR 81, Section 4.14(i)): Kindly furnish copies of the yearly service book verification certificates that the Head of Department (HoD) conducted for the past five years from date of retirement, along with acknowledgment signatures by Shri Durga Prasad Mishra. Point 3: Responsibility for Service Book Maintenance (SR-FR-GFR, SR 198, Section 4.3): Please clarify the officer designated to maintain service books, as stipulated by SR 198, Section 4.3, with specific attention to Shri Durga Prasad Mishra's case. Point 4: Timeline of Service Book Inspections: I Page 1 request a chronological account of service book inspections over the past five years from date of retirement, including inspection dates and the signatures of the inspecting officers. Point 5: Actions between 14/12/2017 and 17/07/2018: Please provide information on the activities and actions taken by GMTD, BSNL, Deoria, during the period from 14/12/2017 to 17/07/2018. Specifically, what steps were taken during this time in response to correspondence from CCA Office, Lucknow F no. CCA/UP(E)/Sub Office VNS/Pen/1899/8167 dated 27/10/2023, in which they have mentioned that the CCA Office wrote you several letters starting from 14/12/2017? Point 6: Non-Payment of Provisional Pension: Explain the reasons behind the decision not to provide the sanction of payment for provisional pension, especially in light of relevant pension rules (Rule 64 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972]). Please provide any correspondence or documentation related to this decision. Point 7: Administrative Delay Clarification: Clarify how, in light of the above points, how in point 11 they have reached the conclusion that it is not an administrative delay."
The CPIO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Deoria vide letter dated 27.02.2024 replied as under:-
"Pension delay was due to non availability of Presidential Order (PO) in his service book record and which was not traceable in due time. When it was noticed, a request letter to provide PO of concern employee sent to AGM(Admin), O/o GMTD Mirzapur SSA vide letter no. DRA/2018/D.P. Mishra, JTO/12 dated 17.07.2018 for copy of PO. As the employee was working in Deoria SSA on deputation and this regard also letter written to the employee vide letter no. Pen-5/TDM-DRA/2018/ D.P. Mishra, JTO/12 dated 17.07.2018 requesting for copy of PO. In his reply on dated 05.03.2019 by Sri Durga Prasad Mishra, informed regarding non availability of PO copy in his record and requested for issue Provisional Pension. After regular persuasions, telephonically as well as in writing with Mirjapur Division and circle Office, Lucknow regarding to provide a copy of PO. Finally a copy of PO was made available by AGM(Admin), circle office, Lucknow on 25.04 2019 and same was sent to the AO(Pension) on 25.04.2019 for settlement of Pension.
Above reply has already given to you for your online RTI application no. BSUPE/R/E/23/00157 Dated 17.09.2023 in point no. 5 and point no. 7 collectively."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 29.02.2024. The FAA vide order dated 12.04.2024 stated as under:-
".....after careful perusal of the RTI application of Sh. Durga Prasad Mishra, dated:29.01.2024 the disposal of RTI application by the CPIO, Deoria on 28.02.2024, first appeal by the appellant dated:29.02.2024, the response produced by the CPIO, Deoria before the undersigned vide his letter dated 04.04.2024 and the action history of the RTI Disposal available on the RTI MIS Portal. 1. Bidyanand, Principal General Manager Telecom District/First Appellate Authority, BSNL, Gorakhpur BA observed that the disposal of the RTI Application of the appellant has not been made by the CPIO, Deoria in a proper way. It has been observed that the disposal of the RTI application lacks pointwise information and therefore the disposal will be treated as incomplete. In view of the above, the disposal of RTI Application by CPIO, Deoria, dated 28.02.2024 is hereby set aside with further instruction to CPIO, Deoria to dispose the aforementioned RTI application afresh within seven days of receiving of this order, under intimation to this office, with complete information as per the RTI Act- 2005.
Page 2 The CPIO, Deoria is hereby advised to be cautious in future disposal of RTI applications and must adhere the relevant guidelines for disposal of RTI Act-2005 to avoid any adverse action."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present Respondent: Pranab Kumar Singh, AGM operations The written submissions of the CPIO were taken on record. Further the oral submissions of both the parties were heard and considered.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to Page 3 him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.
The Commission would like to counsel the CPIO to ensure his presence during the hearing in future.
No further action lies.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)