Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the Respondent vide letter dated 15.04.2022 reiterating the above response and adding that:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID- 19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard at length through video conference and the Respondent stated that PRP i.e. Performance Related Pay is given to an employee at the discretion of the company's management, hence the information sought by the Appellant was declined, since the justification of denial of PRP could not be furnished under the RTI Act.

Decision:

Upon examination of the records of the case the position so emerged that the Appellant had not sought justification or clarification for denial of the benefit viz. PRP to him, he had specifically sought information about the criteria which he did not fulfill which led to denial of the PRP to him. Considering the fact that the grant of PRP in a public authority cannot be decided arbitrarily, the information sought by the Appellant is within the ambit of the RTI Act. Hence, the denial of information by the PIO is not tenable in law and thus set aside.

In the light of the above facts, the provisions of Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act are attracted in this case wherein the Respondent is liable to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decision affecting the Appellant. Thus, the Commission hereby directs the PIO, Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. to furnish a revised reply to the Appellant answering the specific query raised in the RTI application about the criteria, non fulfillment of which had led to denial of PRP to the Appellant. The revised reply shall be sent by the Respondent within three weeks of receipt of this order and a copy of the compliance report in this regard shall be submitted by the Respondent before the Commission by 31.05.2022.