Central Information Commission
Ankit Gupta vs Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. on 9 January, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/HALTD/A/2022/614092+
CIC/HALTD/A/2022/638500
In the matter of
Ankit Gupta
... Appellant
VS
1. CPIO
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited CO.
15/ 1 Cubbon Road, Bangalore 560001
2. CPIO
Mission & Combat System
Research & Design Centre (MCSRDC),
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.
Airport Road,
Vimanapura Post, Bangalore - 560 017
... Respondent
File No. : 614092 638500
RTI application filed on : 01/12/2021 04/03/2022
CPIO replied on : 03/01/2022 11/03/2022,
13/05/2022
First appeal filed on : 20/01/2022 18/04/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 15/02/2022 10/05/2022
Second Appeal filed on : 08/03/2022 14/07/2022
Date of Hearing : 09/01/2023 09/01/2023
Date of Decision : 09/01/2023 09/01/2023
The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Madhav Rao, CM(Quality)/CPIO- Present over VC Information Sought:
1File No. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/614092 The Appellant has stated that he has not received payment of Performance Related Pay (PRP) for the financial year 2017-18. On request with MCSRDC HAL Bangalore, it was communicated via letter No:
D/MCSRDC/HR/83738/2019/269 dated 06/05/2020 that the applicant is not qualified in terms of minimum eligibility criteria in order to receive the PRP for the financial year 2017-18. In this connection, he has sought the following information:
1. Provide detailed calculation of eligible PRP amount for FY 2017-18.
2. Provide detailed clarification on minimum eligible criteria with reference to the appellant for the FY 2017-18.
3. Provide details of First Appeal Authority.
4. Provide eligible PRP amount of the appellant for the FY 2019-20.
5. And other related information.
File No. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/638500 The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide copy of applicable circular/ Rules containing authorities of Performance Review Board (PRB) committee which empowers PRB-PRP to decline PRP (Performance Related Pay) payment to the officers based on resignation.
2. Clarify whether PRB-PRP of 2019-20 is authorized to decline the payment of PRP of financial year 2017-18 to the officer who has resigned in 2019, on the basis of resignation.
3. If the reply to question 2 is in affirmative, provide the copy of rule position/circular/LAN-WAN message etc. which empowers PRB-PRP to decline payment of PRP to the officers on the basis of resignation.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he was relieved from official duties from the O/o MCSRDC HAL, Bangalore on 05.10.2019. He was aggrieved due to non-receipt of Performance Related Pay (PRP) for the financial year 2017-18 by the 2 respondents. He therefore, filed the instant RTI applications in order to seek the necessary information pertaining to his pending claims. In File No. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/614092, written submissions dated 04.01.2023 from the O/o Respondent No. 1 and 05.01.2023 from the O/o Respondent No.
2 were received and taken on record. The CPIO submitted that a point-wise and proper reply was provided on 03.01.2022 on all the queries of the appellant. The reply was further upheld by the FAA. In File No. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/638500, the CPIO submitted that the queries in the RTI applications were identical and the documents sought in the RTI application dated 04.03.2022 were made available in the reply sent with the applications dated 29.06.2020 and 01.12.2021 filed by the same appellant. The CPIO on being questioned about compliance of the order passed by the FAA on 10.05.2022, replied that the same was transferred to the Corporate Office letter dated 13.05.2022.
Observations:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission opined that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the CPIO in both the cases. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellant's queries were attended to at length by the respondents. Under the circumstances, the Commission cannot resolve the dispute pertaining to the Performance Related Pay under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission observed that if the appellant has a service related grievance, he ought to approach the appropriate fora. Here, reference may also be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it was held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
(Emphasis Supplied) Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Commission no further intervention is required in File No. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/614092 as the sought for information stands disseminated as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission however directed the CPIO to provide the information on point no. 6 in File No. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/638500.
3Decision:
In the light of the above observations, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the information on point no. 6 in File No. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/638500 within 7 days of the receipt of this order. The appeals, therefore, stand disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
4