Central Information Commission
Pradeep Nema vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 25 January, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001421
Appellant : Shri Pradeep Nema, Vidisha
Public Authority : Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bhopal
Date of Hearing : December 28, 2016
Date of Decision : January 6, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Ms Deepa Sinha, Manager (P&IR) and Shri Rajesh Singh,
AAO
RTI application : 24.04.2016
CPIO's reply : 19.05.2016
First appeal : 25.05.2016
FAA's order : 27.05.2016
Second appeal : 01.06.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Pradeep Nema, the appellant, sought the reasons of his non promotion for the last three years from the branch office, Vidisha.
2. The CPIO informed the appellant that the information sought was not clear. Therefore, it could not be provided u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority stating that he had asked for reasons for non promotion but the CPIO had not given a satisfactory reply to him. The FAA, after reviewing the reply sent by the CPIO, upheld the CPIO's order. Not satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he did not get the promotion for the last three years, i.e. 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and wanted to know the reasons but neither the CPIO nor the FAA had intimated the reasons for non promotion. They had denied information stating that it did not come within the purview of information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act. He added that there has to be a reason for his not being promoted while his juniors had got promotion.
4. The respondents stated that the LIC, Bhopal gets only the list of candidates selected for promotion and list of those not promoted was not received by them. The promotion list is available on intranet and can be seen by the employee concerned. As no record for the appellant's non promotion was available with them, they had denied information taking exemption u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. On the Commission questioning as to the authority competent to promote, the respondents stated that the order for promotion are received from the Central Office.
5. The Commission observes that the CPIO should have transferred the application to Central office u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act for a direct reply as the Central Office was the authority to take decisions on promotions and is likely to have the reasons for not promoting the appellant. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to transfer the RTI application to Central Office u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Life Insurance Corporation of India Life Insurance Corporation of India CRM Deptt, Divisional Office CRM Deptt, Divisional Office 60-A, Arera Hills, Jail Road 60-A, Arera Hills, Jail Road Bhopal-462011 Bhopal-462011 Shri Pradeep Nema LIC of India Indra Complex Vidisha (MP)