Central Information Commission
K Chandrasekaran vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 8 December, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/629370
K Chandrasekaran .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO under RTI,
Sr. Dy. General Manager-(HR) & PIO,
Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd, Human
Resource Management, Trichy Main
Office Road, Tiruchirapalli-620014
(Tamil Nadu). .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.12.2025
Date of Decision : 08.12.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.03.2024
CPIO replied on : 30.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 23.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 14.05.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.03.2024 (online) seeking the following information:File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/629370 Page 1 of 8
" 1. Who manages The BHEL Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund? Who invests? Who makes the payment of the Corpus to the Annuity Provider - The Trust / The Fund / BHEL?
2. According to the Format dated 04/10/2012, the Corpus amount due to K. Chandrasekaran, Staff No. 2089130, Retd. AGM / HRDC me was Rs.12, 87,477/-. Who held this amount from October 2012 to August 2023? How much interest this amount thus withheld, earned interest during this period?
3. State the Rule in the BHEL Pension Scheme which states that no interest will be paid to the Retiree, if the delay in payment of Pension Corpus was caused by BHEL, for whatever reasons."
2. The CPIO, BHEL, Trichy furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30.03.2024 stating as under:
" Reply for Query 1: The query has been transferred to CPIO, BHEL Corporate Office under Section 6(3) of RTI Act.
Common Reply for query 2 & 3: The above queries are in the nature of eliciting views and opinion from CPIO. Hence the CPIO is of view that no "information" is sought within the ambit of RTI Act."
3. CPIO, BHEL. New Delhi furnished reply dated 13.05.2024 as under:
The information sought by the applicant pertains to BHEL is as under: Reply to Query 1: The question is in the form of a query and does not qualify as an information sought under RTI Act, 2005.
4. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 14.05.2024, held as under:
" On perusal of the records, it is seen that the CPIO Corporate office has issued reply to the applicant on 13/05/2024 in respect of query 1. Perusal of the query 2 & 3 reveals that the appellant has sought the details about who has held the pension corpus amount from October 2012 to August 2023 and how much interest amount earned during the said period and the Rule in the BHEL pension scheme which states that no interest will be paid to the retiree, if the delay in payment of pension corpus was caused by BHEL. CPIO has submitted that the queries are in the nature of File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/629370 Page 2 of 8 seeking opinion which requires interpretation and analysis of the facts of the case of appellant vis-à-vis the applicable rules of the company. It is apparent that furnishing reply to the query necessitates forming of an opinion by CPIO by examining the facts of the case of appellant. Under the RTI Act, the CPIO is required to provide only the information available on record. In this regard, I refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Others (2011 8 SCC 497), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "A public authority is not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority."
Further it is seen that the grounds made by the appellant are in the nature of allegating grievance against public authority and is seeking redressal of his grievance by seeking clarification which is outside the scope of RTI Act. It is a settled legal principle that RTI Act cannot be used as a tool for redressal of grievances. The Hon'ble CIC in the matter of Shri.Kunjan Tripathi Vs CPIO, Department of Post (CIC/BS/A/2014/002518+002486/9102 dated 27/11/2015) has held that "...RTI Act cannot be used a tool to redress the grievances of applicant." Hence the reply issued by CPIO for Query no.2 & 3 does not suffer from any infirmity.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits in the appeal. I, therefore, find that there is no need to interfere with the order of CPIO.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of on 14/05/2024.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. Written submission dated 25.11.2025 has been received from Shri C. Arockiasamy, Addl. General Manager and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
".The brief background of the case is that appellant is an ex-employee of BHEL, Trichy and he retired from service on 24/02/2011. During his service, CBI filed a chargesheet against the appellant for criminal conspiracy to cheat BHEL and criminal misconduct in the matter of File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/629370 Page 3 of 8 award of contract. By Judgment dated 08.09.2006, the CBI Court found the appellant and others guilty and imposed the following sentences:
Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default RI for 6 months - Section 109 read with 420 IPC (abetment & cheating) RI for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default RI for 6 months - Section 468 IPC (forgery) RI for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- , in default RI for 6 months - Section 471 read with 468 IPC (using a forged document as genuine) RI for 1 year - Section 193 IPC (giving false evidence) Challenging the above order, the appellant filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the appellant retired from service on 24/02/2011 and his BHEL pension corpus was not released in view of the pendency of above appeal before Supreme Court. Later on 15/06/2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court passed orders acquitting the appellant from all the charges. Thereafter appellant submitted the pension claim on 04.07.2023 and the same was immediately processed by BHEL and he has been receiving pension from July 2023 onwards.
4. However, the appellant claimed pension arrears for the period from December 2012 till July 2023 and the same was rejected by BHEL as the same is not permissible under BHEL pension scheme. In respect of the said rejection letter, he has made several queries in the present RTI Application. Most of the queries are in the nature of seeking opinion/further clarification / reasons for rejection of his claim for pension arrears from CPIO and the same does not fall within the purview of RTI Act. More importantly, the appellant has filed a writ petition (WP No.27385 of 2024) before the Hon'ble Madras High Court against BHEL Trichy on this subject matter that is, claiming the pension arrears including interest amount from December 2012 till July 2023 and the same is pending before Hon'ble High Court. Hence the matter is sub- judice.
5. The submissions of CPIO for each query are as follows:
(a) Query No.1:
Appellant has sought the detail as to who manages the BHEL Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund and who invests and who makes the payment of the corpus to the annuity provider.
The appellant was already provided with the copy of BHEL Employees Pension Scheme in response to his RTI Application dated 19.02.2024 (RTI ID No.43/2023-24). It is self-explanatory and the same contains all the details about the administration and management of the BHEL Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund and its related rules and File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/629370 Page 4 of 8 regulations of the pension scheme. As such, the appellant is already provided with the entire copy of pension scheme.
(b) Query No.2 & 3:
Appellant has sought the details as to who has held the pension corpus amount from October 2012 to August 2023 and how much interest amount earned during the said period and the Rule in the BHEL pension scheme which states that no interest will be paid to the retiree, if the delay in payment of pension corpus was caused by BHEL The queries are in the nature of seeking opinion which requires interpretation and analysis of the facts of the case of appellant vis-à-vis the applicable rules of the company. It is apparent that furnishing reply to the query necessitates forming of an opinion by CPIO by examining the facts of the case of appellant.
Under the RTI Act, the CPIO is required to provide only the information available on record. In the case of CBSE Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Others (2011 8 SCC 497), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "A public authority is not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority".
The above decision squarely applies to the present case.
6. The appeal grounds made by the appellant are in the nature of alleging grievance against public authority and is seeking redressal of his grievance by seeking clarification which is outside the scope of RTI Act. As stated above, the appellant has already filed writ petition claiming pension arrears and the same is pending before the Hon'ble High Court for adjudication.
7. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the reply of CPIO does not suffer from any infirmity and the Second Appeal made by the Appellant is not maintainable..."
6. Written submission dated 28.11.2025 has been received from the Appellant and the same has been taken on record for perusal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/629370 Page 5 of 8 Respondent: Ms. Lata Rani, Sr. Manager, CSR/CPIO, BHEL, New Delhi, Shri C.B. Singh, Addl. Engineer, Nodal Officer, BHEL, New Delhi, Ms. Priyanka Singhal, Executive (HR), BHEL, New Delhi, Ms. Nithya, Manager, HR, BHEL, Trichy- participated in the hearing.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 11.07.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that as regards point No.1, the Appellant has sought the details as to who manages the BHEL Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund and who invests and who makes the payment of the corpus to the annuity provider.
They submitted that the Appellant was already provided with the copy of BHEL Employees' Pension Scheme in response to his RTI Application dated 19.02.2024 (RTI ID No.43/2023-24). It is self-explanatory and the same contains all the details about the administration and management of the BHEL Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund and its related rules and regulations of the pension scheme. As such, the appellant is already provided with the entire copy of pension scheme. As regards point No. No.2 & 3, the queries are in the nature of seeking opinion which require interpretation and analysis of the facts of the case of Appellant vis-vis the applicable rules of the company. Further furnishing reply to the queries raised in the RTI Application necessitates forming of an opinion by CPIO by examining the facts of the case of Appellant. Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, notes that the main premise of the instant Second Appeal is non-furnishing of complete information by the PIO.
8. It is observed that the Appellant has sought relating to the management of the BHEL Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund, including details of custody of the pension corpus, rules governing interest on and investment responsibility. The CPIO denied the information on vague and general File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/629370 Page 6 of 8 grounds, without invoking any specific exemption under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act, 2005. The First Appellate Authority also upheld the CPIO's denial without proper examination.
9. It is noted that the information sought pertains directly to the Appellant's own pension corpus, financial entitlements, and service-related rights.
Such information is inherently personal to the Appellant and cannot be refused unless covered under an explicit exemption of Section 8(1) or 9 of the RTI Act.
10. The Commission also observes that matters relating to pension, retirement corpus, delay in annuity purchase, and the role of the BHEL Superannuation Benefit Fund also attract heightened transparency obligations under Section 4(1)(b).
11. The Commission holds that the denial of information by the CPIO was arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act. It is observed that the information sought is necessary for the Appellant to assert and defend his legal rights in matters connected with his pension and arrears. Denial of such information undermines transparency and violates the spirit of the RTI Act, whose Preamble mandates an informed citizenry.
12. In view of the foregoing, the CPIO, BHEL, Trichy is directed to re-examine the RTI Application and furnish a revised point-wise reply to the Appellant. Since a considerable time has elapsed and complete replies have not been furnished, the Commission finds it appropriate to direct remedial action. CPIO, BHEL, Trichy is directed to invoke Section 5(4) of the RTI Act and obtain the requisite information/reply from transferee CPIO, BHEL, New Delhi. Consolidated information/reply shall be provided to the Appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/629370 Page 7 of 8 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, AGM-HR, BHEL, Tiruchirappalli - 620014 File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/629370 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)