Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mr.A K Khatoniar vs Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas on 17 January, 2013

                                                                              OUT TODAY


                         Central Information Commission
          Room No. 308, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

                           File No:CIC/LS/A/2012/002735

      Appellant              :       Shri A.K. Khatoniar
      Public Authority       :       Oil India Ltd., Guwahati
      Date of hearing        :       17.01.2013
      Date of Decision       :       17.01.2013

FACTS

Heard today dated 17.01.2013. Appellant not present. The public authority is represented by Shri S.K. Deka, Sr Manager. This case is fixed up for hearing on 21.1.2013. However, Shri Deka is present before the Commission in some other matter. Taking advantage of his presence, I have decided to hear him and decide the case so as to avoid the necessity of the CPIO travelling all the way from Dhulijan to New Delhi at a considerable cost to the Company.

2. The appellant is a retired General Manager of OIL. Vide RTI application dated 09.02.2012 he had sought the following information :-

"(i)`Copies of the proposal, approval/decision to release the PRP for 2008-

09 in respect of the executives who were imposed penalties as mentioned in letter No:PERS/09/AKK-2756 dated 13.06.2011 from the Personnel Deptt.

(ii) Copies of the proposal, approval/decision to release the PRP for 2008-09 in respect of the executives who were imposed penalties as mentioned in letter No.PERS/09/AKK--2756 dated 13.6.2011;

(iii) Copies of the proposal, approval/decision not to pay the ad hoc advance against PRP for 2007-08 to the undersigned (without any intimation) which was stated to have gotten released "inadvertently" as stated in the letter No:PERS/09/AKK/2756 dated 13.6.2011 although it was paid to others

(iv) Copy of the circular/letter issued to the executives advising the conditions mentioned in paa 2 of letter PERS/09/Akk-4451 dated 30.7.2011 of about subsequent adjustments of the lump sum ad hoc advance paid to each executive against PRP for the year 2007-08

(v) Copy of the PRP model made by the internal committee duly endorsed by external consultant

(vi) Details of anomaly observed in disbursement of ad hoc amount as mentioned in letter PERS/09/AKK--4451 dated 30.7.2011

(vii) Copy of second (another) internal committee's recommendation based on which final calculation of PRP was done

(viii) Please furnish the calculation details in respect of the PRPs for the year 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 for the undersigned.

(ix) Copy of the contract entered with the External Consultant mentioned in letter PERS/09/AKK--4451 dated 30.7.2011 and copy of the approval for his engagement.

(x) Details of the payment released to the Consultant in point (ix) above enclosing copies of his bills and SESs."

3. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 24.04.2012 and subsequent letter dated 11.05.2012. I have carefully gone through the CPIO's letter dated 11.5.2012 and notice that the information regarding paras 2,4,7 and 8 has been provided to the appellant. However, information on rest of the paras has been denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It is pertinent to mention that in the paras regarding which information has been denied, the appellant had sought information about Performance Related Pay (PRP) for the years 2008-09 and the matters related therewith. It is trite that PRP is paid from the company's funds. Therefore, it can not be said to be personal information. For all intents and purposes, this information falls in public domain. The view taken by the CPIO that this information is not discloseable to the appellant is not sustainable in law and, therefore, his order is set aside. The CPIO is hereby directed to offer inspection of the concerned documents to the appellant on a mutually convenient date and time and permit the appellant to take extracts therefrom on payment of requisite fee.

4. This order may complied with in 04 weeks time.

5. Before parting with this matter, I would like to observe that the order regarding disposal of first appeal has been issued under the signature of Shri Deka, Sr Manager (Legal). Apparently, he has passed this order on behalf of FAA. This order is totally violative of the provisions of the RTI Act. It is pertinent to mention that the CPIO and AA perform quasi judicial functions under the RTI Act and they can not delegate these functions to their subordinates and colleagues. They are mandated to pass orders under their own seal and signatures. I am informed that in this case Shri N K Aggarwal, Resident Chief Executive is the AA. He was mandated to pass this order under his signatures rather than asking the Sr Manager to deal with it. He is advised to note this point for compliance..

( M.L. Sharma ) Information Commissioner Authenticated. Additional copies of the order shall be supplied on application and payment of fees, as per RTI Act, to the CPIO of the Commission.



(K.L.Das)
Dy Registrar                      Address of the Parties :-



( l) The HEAD (pLg0 &CPIO,                      2) Shri A K KHATONIA, 5A, RADHAKUNJ APPTTS
OIL INDIA LTD., DULIYAJAN ASSAM                   LAKHI NAGAR, GUWAHATI 781 005
Aggrico, Jamshedpur - 9.