Central Information Commission
Mahesh Kumar Mittal vs Nhpc Ltd. on 18 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NHPCL/A/2023/607381
Mahesh Kumar Mittal ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
NHPC Ltd, RTI Cell, NHPC
Office Complex, Sector-33,
Faridabad-121003, Haryana. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16/05/2023
Date of Decision : 16/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03/12/2022
CPIO replied on : 03/01/2023
First appeal filed on : 10/01/2023
First Appellate Authority order : 03/02/2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08/02/2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.12.2022 seeking the following information:
"I Mahesh Kumar Mittal, Former Director Finance and Employee No. 104480K had superannuated from NHPC on 30.09.2020. After my superannuation I was paid Gratuity of Rs 1624826 as against the entitlement of Rs 20 Lakhs under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.1
Subsequently NHPC filed a civil suit bearing No. 284 of 2022 i.e. CIS No CS284 of 2022 against me in the Hon'ble Court at Faridabad for recovery of Rs 32986 on the pretext of excess payment or over drawl of Gratuity.
While corresponding with Ministry of Power, Government of India it was noted that NHPC has obtained legal opinion in the above matter of Gratuity from the Additional Solicitor General i.e. ASG.
In this connection, please provide the following information:
1. Copy of entire note sheet and all correspondence in the file wherein the decision to file the aforesaid civil suit was taken.
2. Copy of Note sheet wherein the approval was accorded by competent authority to file the above civil suit.
3. Copy of note sheet wherein the decision was taken not to recover the above amount of Rs 32986 from the PRP for FY 2020 paid in January 2022 but instead to file the civil suit for recovery of the above amount.
4. Copy of the legal opinion obtained in the above matter of Gratuity from the Additional Solicitor General i.e. MG and the amount of Fees paid for the same."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 03.01.2023 stating as under:
1. Enclosed as Annexure-A.
2. Enclosed as Annexure-A.
3. There was no note sheet processed on the subject.
4. The said information cannot be disclosed under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.01.2023. FAA's order, dated 03.02.2023, held as under:
"I have carefully examined the appeal viz-a-viz correspondence made between the CPIO, the deemed PIO and the appellant and it is observed that there is no denial in providing the information as per the Act. The information/reply provided by Human Resource Division, Corporate Office has been furnished to the applicant by CP10 vide letter NH/RTI/E-425/2022/1425 dated 03/01/2023.2
The appeal was forwarded to concern i.e. HR Division, Corporate Office for examination and offer their comments on appeal vide letter no. NH/CO/Human Resource/2023/117 dated 12/01/2023. Responding to the same, HR Division, Corporate Office provided the information/documents vide letter no. HR/CO/Human Resource/2023/192 dated 16/01/2023, which is enclosed as Annexure-T. (01 pages)."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: R. T. Nathan, General Manager & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of RTI Application expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that the enclosures provided to him against points no. 1 & 2 initially were not legible and also no information was furnished to him at points no. 3 & 4. He further stated that although he has received a revised reply now yesterday on his WhatsApp; however, he is unable to access multiple pages through mobile phone.
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant information was already furnished to the Appellant earlier and also, upon receipt of hearing notice, the relevant note sheet was again supplied to him via WhatsApp. At the behest of the Commission, the CPIO agreed to resend a copy of the same to the Appellant through email.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO on all the points as it was found to be as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Now, considering the Appellant's contentions and in furtherance of hearing proceedings the CPIO is directed to resend a copy of all relevant documents in response to point no. 1 & 2 through email on the Appellant's email id. The said 3 direction should be complied by the CPIO within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4