Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000844/SS
Name of the Appellant : Mr. P. Sarkar
(The Appellant was not present)
Name of the Public Authority : Western Coalfields Limited, M.P.
Represented by Shri Balkishan
Chandora, GM and Shri Pradeep
Kumar Shrivastava, Dy. Manager.
The matter was heard on : 23.5.2011.
ORDER
Mr. P. Sarkar, the Appellant, filed an application dated 31.3.2008 under
the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, seeking information on 3 points regarding
differences in his salary in comparison to that of his colleagues, payment of rest
day working, payment of overtime and variable dearness allowance. The PIO,
vide his reply dated 27.4.2008 provided information to the Appellant contained in
11 pages. These documents were again provided to the Appellant, vide PIO
letter dated 30.4.2010 on receipt of his complaint filed before the CIC. Not
satisfied with the reply of the PIO the Appellant filed an appeal before the First
Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA, vide its decision dated 28.6.2010 was of
the view that requisite information had been provided by the PIO. He also held
that the appeal of the Appellant was in the nature of seeking redressal of
grievances, asking for interpretation of rules and inspection etc. While upholding
the reply of the PIO, the FAA gave an option to the Appellant for inspection of the
relevant records. However, the Appellant did not turn up for inspection of records
and instead has filed a 2nd appeal before the Commission.
In his appeal filed before the Commission, the Appellant pleads that he
has not been provided with the correct information.
During the hearing the Respondent submits that complete information as
per record has already been provided to the Appellant and nothing further
remains to be provided.
After hearing the Respondent and on perusal of relevant documents on
file, the Commission is of the considered view that complete information
available on record and permissible under the RTI Act has already been
furnished to the Appellant. The Appellant in his 2nd appeal does not clarify how
incorrect information has been provided to him. The Commission notes that the
Appellant did not avail of the opportunity of inspection of records as offered by
the Appellate Authority. It appears that Appellant has a grievance regarding his
service conditions which cannot be addressed under the provisions of RTI Act.
The Commission therefore, holds that complete requisite information as per
record and permissible under RTI Act has been provided to the Appellant by the
Respondent and there is no need for the Commission to interference in the order
of the Respondent.
The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
Sd/-
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
23.5.2011
Authenticated true copy:
(S.Padmanabha)
Under Secretary & Deputy
Registrar
Copy to:
1. Mr. P. Sarkar,
Qtr. No. B/43, Shobapur Colony,
Post Pathakheda Zila Betul,
Madhya Pradesh.
2. The Public Information Officer,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Pathakheda Zila Betul,
Madhya Pradesh.
3. The First Appellate Authority,
Western Coalfields Limited ,
O/o the Chief General Manager,
Coal Estate, Civil Lines,
Nagpur-440001.