Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: PRP in S Arul Selvan vs Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. on 5 May, 2017Matching Fragments
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), Bangalore, seeking information on six points including, inter alia, (i) a copy of the rules which prevented the payment of Performance Related Pay (PRP) to him even though he had scored 92% in the first and second quarters, which denotes excellent performance, and (ii) what are the marks assumed for the third and fourth quarters for calculating PRP in the year 2012-13.
Hearing on 06.03.2017:
3. Both the complainant S Arul Selvan and the respondent Capt. A. Ghani, CPIO, HAL attended the hearing through Video Conferencing.
4. The complainant submitted that he had, inter-alia, sought for a copy of the Rules which prevented the payment of PRP to him and the marks for the third and fourth quarters assumed for calculating the PRP in the year 2012-2013. However, no information in this regard has been provided to him by the respondent.
5. The respondent submitted that a point-wise reply as per the available records has been provided to the complainant vide letter dated 31.08.2015. The respondent further submitted that a copy of the Circular governing the payment of the PRP had been provided to the complainant along with the letter dated 31.08.2015. The respondent further stated that on receipt of the Notice of the Hearing, point-wise information had been provided to the complainant vide letter dated 01.03.2017.
Hearing on 25.04.2017:
10. The respondents, Capt. A. Ghani, CPIO, HAL and Shri M. M. Bebarta, Assistant General Manager (S & F), HAL were present in person.
11. The respondent, Capt. A. Ghani, has submitted his explanation dated 06.04.2017. The respondent, with respect to point no. 1 of the RTI application submitted that vide letter dated 31.08.2015, complete information was furnished to the complainant as the copies of the Circulars dated 17.01.2011 and 02.06.2011 pertaining to the entitlement of the PRP for the year 2012-13 were forwarded to him. With respect to point no. 2 of the RTI application, the respondent stated that on 08.03.2013, the complainant was dismissed from service and in accordance with the Company's policy as stated in Para 5 of the Circular dated 02.06.2011, he was barred from payment of the PRP for the period of one year prior to the date of dismissal. Accordingly, considering his disentitlement from the PRP, CIC/VS/C/2015/900362/SB Page 3 no Mutually Agreed Task Initiative (MATI) marks were assumed by the complainant, for the third and fourth quarters of the year 2012-13. Hence, the information sought was not available to be furnished to the complainant. The respondent also stated that complete information with respect to point nos. 5 and 6 of the RTI application has been provided to the complainant vide letters dated 29.06.2015 and 01.03.2017. Hence, there was no mala fide intention, on the part of the CPIO, HAL to deny information to the complainant. In view of this, the respondent requested the Commission to drop the show cause notice issued against the CPIO, HAL.
Decision
12. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, finds the explanation furnished by the CPIO, HAL satisfactory. The Commission observes that the amount of Rs. 60/-, on the basis of Rs. 2 per page for 30 pages, was legitimately sought from the complainant for furnishing information with respect to the Rules pertaining to the entitlement of the PRP. Therefore, this amount doesn't qualify for being refunded to the complainant. The Commission notes that since the complainant was dismissed from the service, he was disentitled from the PRP, as per Para 5 of the Circular dated 02.06.2011, and consequently, no MATI marks were assumed, for the third and fourth quarters of the year 2012-13. Thus, information was not provided to the complainant. However, since no MATI marks were assumed, the Commission observes that there was no reasons for the CPIO to deliberately withhold information. In view of this, it cannot be said that there was any mala fide intention on the part of Capt. A. Ghani, CPIO, HAL, to conceal the information from the complainant. As a result, in the absence of any mala fide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO. Hence, the Show Cause Notice issued against Capt. A. Ghani, CPIO, HAL is hereby dropped.