Central Information Commission
Prem Kumar Vashist vs Mmtc Limited on 19 December, 2019
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
Decision no.: -CIC/MMTCL/A/2018/159832/02406
File no.: - CIC/MMTCL/A/2018/159832
In the matter of:
Prem Kumar Vashist
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
MMTC Limited, Core-1,
Scope Complex, 7 Institutional Area,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 10/07/2018 CPIO replied on : 25/07/2018 First appeal filed on : 08/08/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 04/09/2018 Second Appeal dated : 01/10/2018 Date of Hearing : 17/12/2019 Date of Decision : 17/12/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present in person
Respondent: V S N Rao, General Manager & CPIO, present in person.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Details of employees whose service award of 10 grams gold medallion was kept in abeyance on the date of retirement which, however, was released later on. The said information is required from the date of introduction of the scheme till its withdrawal.1
2. A certified copy of the MMTC Service Award Scheme (10gm gold medallion) to its employees on superannuation with amendments, if any.
3. Date of withdrawal of the aforesaid scheme.
4. A certificate copy of the instructions withdrawing aforesaid scheme.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that incomplete information was provided to him. Giving the background of the case, he stated that he retired on superannuation as Senior Manager on 31.08.2013. At the time of his retirement, MMTC had a Welfare Scheme for its retiring employees under which the retiring employees were presented with a service award in the form of a 10 grams gold medallion in a function organized by the Personnel Department of the Company on the date of their retirement. However, both gold medal and gratuity were not released to him at the time of his superannuation without giving any reason or justification as not even a notice on any issue was served to him till the time of his retirement to justify the withholding of these benefits. However, in compliance with the orders of the Labour Commissioner, his gratuity was released alongwith 10% penal interest on 11.05.2018. He was also absolved of all the frivolous charges levelled against him. He submitted that he is aggrieved with the action of the MMTC for withholding his gold medallion to which he was entitled especially since he was absolved of any charge and through his RTI application he sought the information about the list of employees who were denied the benefit at the time of their retirement but subsequently it was released in their favour. To substantiate his claim, he also cited a case which was identical to his, the only difference was that in the case cited by him, the benefits were given to the employee subsequently.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was provided to the appellant on 25.07.2018 as per the records available with them. He further submitted that since the benefit of Welfare Scheme for retiring employees was withdrew based on the CAG's observations, the appellant was not given such benefit. He also submitted that a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant which he refused to accept after his retirement. He referred to an exoneration 2 File no.: - CIC/MMTCL/A/2018/159832 memorandum dated 30.08.2014 to convince the Commission as to why the benefit was not given to him.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved that the benefit of the Welfare Scheme under which the retiring employees were presented with a service award in the form of a 10 grams gold medallion was not given to him despite the fact that this scheme was prevalent at the time of his retirement. The submission of the CPIO that the Scheme in question was withdrawn in the year 2015 based on the CAG's observations and hence the benefit was not given to the appellant, is not acceptable as the appellant had retired in the month of August, 2013 when the Scheme was very much prevalent. Another submission of the CPIO was that a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant alongwith 12 other employees and it may be a reason for not giving the benefit to the appellant.
The Commission noted that till the date of superannuation of the appellant on 30.08.2013, no charge-sheet was served to him. As per the appellant, he received the charge-sheet in the month of June 2014 i.e. after his retirement.
On a query by the Commission to show the charge-sheet which was issued against the appellant, the CPIO failed to produce anything apart from referring to a letter dated 30.08.2014 which was an exoneration memorandum. The Commission is surprised to note as to how an exoneration order is on record without a copy of the charge-sheet. The submission of the CPIO that the appellant refused to accept the charge-sheet is also unacceptable as even if he had refused to accept the charge-sheet on 30 Aug 2013, then the same could have been sent to him by post or served by hand. All these facts and the submissions of the CPIO are thus not satisfactory to explain as to why the benefit was not given to the appellant when his gratuity amount was also released to him. The CPIO also failed to explain if at all any charge-sheet was issued to the appellant or not to convince the appellant that he was not entitled to get the benefit of the Welfare Scheme.
3Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to re-visit the RTI application particularly on point no.1 and to provide an additional reply to the appellant as per the discussion held during the hearing within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
In the interest of justice, the CPIO is also advised to discuss the case of the appellant with the higher authorities to ascertain on what basis the benefit of the Welfare Scheme was not given to the appellant when he was entitled to the same. All the relevant documents in this regard should be given to the appellant for his information.
The appeal is 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