Central Information Commission
Hemant vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 20 December, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमार्ग, मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2022/662316
Shri Hemant ... अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Date of Hearing : 20.12.2023
Date of Decision : 20.12.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.09.2022
PIO replied on : 14.10.2022
First Appeal filed on : 17.10.2022
First Appellate Order on : 16.11.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd
: 25.11.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.09.2022 seeking the following information:-
"I Hemant a resident of India EX DM of BSNL CO would like to seek the following information under RTI ACT 2005 in SOFT FORM, in respect of a pay anomaly representation made by me on 17 Dec 2020, no replied so far followed by reminders (three dated 19 Jan 2021, 24 Feb 2021 and 31 March 2021 1 Current status of the representation made dated 17 Dec 2020 2 Soft Copy of the notesheets pertaining to the file in which representation made dated 17 Dec 2020 was processed 3 Movement History of file indicating the processing of files at different levels in Hierarchy 4 BSNL or CVO BSNL guidelines of processing of files and action on inordinate delay in processing the files or GOI guidelines in this respect, being ollowed in BSNL 5 How long an officer can hold or keep a office receipt without any action 6 Reasons for disposal of the representation made dated 17 Dec 2020 and incase disposed reason for non intimation to the aggrieved party and delay in disposal of this pay anomaly case Page 1 of 4 7 Action taken by Superiors on the reminders submitted dated 19 Jan 2021, 24 Feb 2021 and 31 March 2021 8 Any action taken on delayed processing of this pay anomaly representation"
The CPIO/Joint GM., Bharat Sanchar Limited, vide letter dated 14.10.2022 replied as under:-
"
1 to 3 :- Final decision is yet to be taken in this matter. The case is under process.
4:- Details given in the request regarding the information sought is not sufficient to trace the guidelines requested. 5:- Requested information is interrogatory in nature and hence not covered in definition of information under para 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. 6:- No such information is available. The case of stepping up of pay in respect of Sh. Omendra Kumar Govind, with whom parity has been sought is under examination and final decision is yet to be taken. 7:- No such information is available. However these letters are under process in the same file.
8:- No such information is available."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.10.2022. The FAA/GM., Bharat Sanchar Limited vide order dated 16.11.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 18.12.2023 has been received from CCPIO(Pers)/Jt. GM(Pers), BSNL as under:
In reference to RTI application bearing registration no. BSNLD/R/E/22/01114, Dated: 16-Sep-2022 of Sh. Hemant it is submitted that since the matter was under process and final decision was pending therefore accordingly the para no. 1,2, 3, 6 & 7 of his RTI application was replied accordingly.
Regarding para 4, it is submitted that the applicant wanted some guidelines without mentioning complete identity, no. or date of the guidelines sought. It was not feasible to search the desired guidelines with the help of references given in the request and therefore this para was replied accordingly.
Regarding request at para 5 it is submitted that the applicant has sought answer to an interrogatory query which is not covered under the definition of information under section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005 and therefore this query was replied accordingly vide aforesaid reply of CPIO.Page 2 of 4
It is pertinent to mention here that considering his representations a copy of pay fixation memo dated 21.09.2023 vide this office e-mail 25.09.2023 has already been furnished to him. It is evident that all the information available at that time and considered relevant by CPIO and First Appellate Authority were supplied to the applicant.
Written submission dated 19.12.2023 has been received from the Appellant and same is taken on record.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present via phone Respondent: Mr. O.N. Tiwary, Jt. GM(Per), BSNL Co.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished by the Respondent till date. He stated that the Respondent has only furnished the pay fixation memo. He stated that he had sought note-sheets. Movement history of his file etc but same has not been furnished till date.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly furnished to the Appellant. Hey further stated that a copy of pay fixation memo dated 21.09.2023 vide this office e-mail 25.09.2023 has already been furnished to him. He offered inspection of records related to personal file and representation made by the Appellant.
Decision:
Commission based on the averment made by the parties during hearing, directs the PIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant or his authorised representative, to inspect available and relevant records of the personal file and representation made by the Appellant, as sought in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and/or in writing.
In case, relevant information pertains to some other Branch/Department, then the concerned PIO should procure and provide relevant documents for the said inspection. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided upon payment of prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. However, no information shall be furnished by the PIO, to the Appellant, which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. PIO must make sure that only information pertaining to Appellant must be produced for Page 3 of 4 inspection and no records pertaining to any third party must be produced and same must be redacted or blacked out prior to the said inspection The said direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO. No further action lies.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसामरिया) 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 of 4