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 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Dr. P V Srinivas Acharyulu vs National Thermal Power Corporation ... on 6 December, 2024

                             के ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई िद      ी, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/NTPCO/C/2023/642009

Dr. P V Srinivas Acharyulu                             ....िशकायतकता /Complainant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम

CPIO,
NTPC Limited, Engineering
Office Complex, 4th Floor, D
Block, Room No. 185, Sector
24, Noida - 201301                                        .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                      :    18.11.2024
Date of Decision                     :    05.12.2024

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on             :    17.01.2023
CPIO replied on                      :    07.04.2023
First appeal filed on                :    16.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order    :    Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated           :    27.08.2023

Information sought

:

The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 17.01.2023 seeking the following information:
"I. Statement of EPS 95 Contributions towards the following accounts and periods (Dates mentioned as per the records furnished by NTPC from time to time) S.No. EPS 95 A/c Number Description Period Page 1 of 5 From To 1 1400/AuGPS/P&A-E/PF- Contribution to 10.12.1992 31.12.1997 78729 EPS 95 2 HY/28960/78729 -Do- 01.11.1995 30.09.2000 3 AP/VP/36885/126 -Do- 01.10.2000 10.06.2007 4 AP/VP/36885/130 -Do- 01.08.2002 10.06.2007 5 AP/VP/KRN/19557/2447 -Do- 11.06.2007 01.03.2009 6 DL/4070/109529 -Do- 01.03.2009 TILL DATE II. Statement of Provident Fund (PF) Employee / Employer (Dates mentioned as per the records furnished by NTPC from time to time) S.No. EPS 95 A/c Number Description Period From To 1 1400/AuGPS/P&A-E/PF- Contribution to 10.12.1992 31.12.1997 78729 EPS 95 2 HY/28960/78729 -Do- 01.11.1995 30.09.2000 3 AP/VP/36885/126 -Do- 01.10.2000 10.06.2007 4 AP/VP/36885/130 -Do- 01.08.2002 10.06.2007 5 AP/VP/KRN/19557/2447 -Do- 11.06.2007 01.03.2009 6 DL/4070/109529 -Do- 01.03.2009 TILL DATE III. Whether 8.33% of actual salary is contributed towards EPS 95 as per EPS 95 Rules are deposited to EPFO or not, for this applicant and any other employee a. if yes, statement of contributions and pension calculation be furnished, for this applicant b. if not, why 8.33% on actual salary was not deposited for this applicant even after opted for EPS 95 contribution on higher salary / actual salary, reasons and relevant documents be furnished.

IV. Furnish full details of employees including top management employees, whose EPS 95 contributions are deposited with EPFO on their actual salaries for EPS 95 Pension purpose."

The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 07.04.2023 stating as under:

"Reply-Para (1) to Para (2) As the above information is confidential in nature and exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005, hence can't be provided through RTI. However, the documents may be collected from Page 2 of 5 HR department, NTPC Simhadri (the applicant in capacity as an ex- employee) Moreover, for EPS A/c No. AP/VP/36885/130 (01.08.2002 to 10.06.2007), as per EPFO website, this member ID isn't in the name of Mr. P. V. Srinivas Acharyulu. The information sought is personal information related to third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Reply - Para (3) No. Further, 2005. reasons/clarifications/justifications are outside the ambit of RTI Act.
Reply - Para (4) No such details available."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 16.04.2023. The FAA order is not on record.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri S. Nandan, CPIO and Shri Vikash Kumar, DGM Appeared in person.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply to the complainant based on the inputs received from the concerned department vide letter dated 07.04.2023. The respondent further submitted that none of the accounts mentioned in the RTI application belong to the complainant as per the records available with them. Hence, the information sought was denied on the grounds of it being personal information of third parties and in the absence of any larger public interest exemption was claimed under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, noted that point-wise reply was given by the respondent vide letter dated 07.04.2023. The respondent submitted that none of the accounts mentioned in the RTI application belongs Page 3 of 5 to the complainant as per the records available with them. Accordingly, the information sought was denied on the grounds of it being personal information of third parties and claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The complainant in his RTI application, first appeal and complaint before the Commission failed to establish any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information.
The complainant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. The submissions of the respondent are taken on record.
Further, it may not be out of place to mention that the instant matter is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. Perusal of the records reveals that there is no mala fide on part of the respondent in replying to the RTI application. Hence, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the instant complaint.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 4 of 5 Copy To:
The FAA, NTPC Limited, R and D Building, 1st Floor, Room. No. 120, Sector - 24, Noida - 201301 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)