Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2008/00073 dated 15.04.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 25 September 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri A.K. Sinha,
M-303, Rail Vihar,
Sector 4, Kharghar,
Navi Mumbai.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Nuclear Power Corporation of India
Limited, Vikram Sarabai Bhavan,
Central Avenue, Anushaki Nagar,
Mumbai - 400 094.
The Appellant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri R.R. Kakde, CPIO, was present.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated April 15,
2008, requested the CPIO for a number of information in respect of the
policy regarding reappointment and extension of service in the NPCIL. The
CPIO replied on May 30, 2008, that is somewhat belatedly, and provided the
desired information against all the queries. The Appellant was not satisfied
with the information so provided and approached the first Appellate
Authority on June 17, 2008. They first Appellate Authority decided his
appeal in his order dated July 24, 2008 and rejected it expressing
agreement with the information already provided by the CPIO. The
Appellant has challenged this order in his second appeal.
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was not
present in spite of notice. The Respondent was present in the Mumbai studio
of the NIC. We heard his submissions. We carefully considered his
submissions and the contents of the application for information as well as
the information provided by the CPIO. Except for the claim of the Appellate
Authority that nobody had been ever reappointed in the NPCIL, the
remaining information provided by the CPIO seems to be in order. The
CIC/SM/A/2008/00073
Appellant has enclosed copies of two orders issued by the NPCIL appointing
two persons, apparently after their date of retirement, as advisers, each for
a period of six months to show that the NPCIL did appoint people after their
retirement contrary to the claim of the Appellate Authority. The
Respondent clarified that such appointments as these were contractual
appointments and could not be equated with reappointment. Be that as it
may, we think that the CPIO should explain the implication of
appointments, such as the ones cited by the Appellant. We, therefore,
direct the CPIO to communicate to the Appellant within 10 working days
from the receipt of this order, a copy of the rules under which the NPCIL
makes contractual appointments of retired officials.
4. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied
against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the
CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2008/00073