CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00631 dated 4-5-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri P. Kaladharan
Respondent: Ministry of Defence (MoD) AV.
FACTS By an application of 20-6-06 Shri P. Kaladharan of Tiruchirapally applied
to Shri A. Bandopadhyay, IOFS, CPIO O/o DDG (AV) Hqrs. Chennai seeking
the following information:
“1. I request you to kindly provide the copy of VR rejection
draft approval order of competent authority on the noting
put up by the administration. I will send the required
application fee on hearing from you.2. Kindly also give the reason as to why I was denied the
pay and allowances including OT on the last day of my
service especially when my VR order itself has been
cancelled. Kindly refer EFA order no. 762 dated
11.6.2004 and also revised pension has been made w.e.f.
1.6.03. I have done duty on 30.4.97 including OT. And
again since May 1st being a Holiday I was summoned to
admin office on 2.5.97 only and was handed over my VR
rejection letter. As per Pay Slip I have not been paid my
pay and allowance for the above mentioned date. Kindly
inform whether the above payment will be made.3. Kindly inform under which authority I was denied my final
claim for TA/ DA especially when the same has been
accepted and forwarded to CDA Kolkatta by EFA for
passing the same after scrutiny. Kindly let me know the
bill number etc and copy of the rejection letter of CDA.
Kolkatta if, any.4. Arrears of PLB based on revised formula for years-1993-
94 to 1998-99 for 21 days (piecemeal) has been granted
to all employees of Ordnance Factory who were on
service. This is as per MOD letter no 48 (4)/98/D (B&C)
dated 29.09.2000 and OFB letter no. 873/CC/A/A dated
24.7.2000. Kindly inform why I was denied full payment
of these arrears when I was in the strength of EFA till my1
VR (30.4.97). Hence it was the duty of EFA to claim full
arrears of this PLB.’
5. As per DGOF order handed over through Ordnance
Factory, Trichy I have reported EFA main gate on
13.01.05 FN but I was not allowed to join duty as per the
then General Manager Shri R. Sundaram till 21.01.95. I
was regularly reporting to factory main gate and had sent
fax/ telex to GM/ DGOFS Headquarters regularly. On
21.01.95 only I was allowed to join duty. The period from
13.01.95 to 21.01.95 has been declared as leave. The
above period has not been regularized against joining
date or leave for encashment as the time of retirement.
Moreover, GM EFA has granted 8 days casual leave as a
special case to the undersigned. These 8 days leave has
not been readjusted against EL/HPL/WOP booked
against my credit so that the above sanction of leave by
GM could not benefit me. Kindly give information with
reason as to why I w as denied the above regularization
of leave for encashment.
6. The judgement order against OA 629 is reproduced
below:-
“It is therefore prayed that the Hon. Tribunal may be
pleased to direct the respondents to count the period
from 1.5.97 to 30.5.03 as qualifying service for
pension and other retrial benefits and direct the
respondents to sanction and pay the same with all
consequential benefits and pass such other order or
orders as may be same with all consequential benefits
and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed
fit.” The relief sought by the applicant in this OA has
been granted by hon. CAT Madras. Why the
management has not passed any orders for
consequential benefit or not made payments other than
retrial benefits to the applicant.
So kindly inform whether I am going to get all benefits as
granted to any other NGO or above in any grade retired
on 30.5.03 as per the pay drawn by me at that time
along with cash, kinds or courtesy. Kindly also inform
correctly what are the facility/ payment other than
terminal benefits paid to an NGO/GO/ employee as on
31.5.03 at Engine Factory Avadi.”
2
To this he received a response on 28-8-06 from PIO, Shri Stanley
Coutinho, Addl. GM for GM with which he enclosed the detailed response
submitted by him to Shri A. Bandopadhyay as follows:
“The first point raised by Shri S. Kaladharan is reg. the mistake
in the Service Certificate. The said certificate has been verified
and it is confirmed that instead of showing his date of
appointment as 1.1.63, the service certificate shows the
said date as 1.1.68 which is an error.1Secondly, with a view to obtain clarification from the individual,
the undersigned has spoken to him. In the course of discussion,
he stated that the overall performance indicated in the certificate
is not in order. He would like to have a certificate of “Very
Good” up to the date of his actual superannuation. In this
connection, it is stated that the individual had approached the
Hon’ble CAT in OA 296 of 2005 in which he had asked for the
benefits of promotion etc., in consequence of the favourable
decision received by him in OA 629 of 2003. The decision in
this case was also in favour of the individual. This office has
taken up the matter through a W.P. before the Hon’ble High
Court of Madras. Since the matter is now subjudice, it is not in
order to make any amendment in the records.
The individual has also asked for various documents, the
position regarding this is given below:-
Points raised/ Comments of the Factory information sought VR rejection draft The notings are available. They are required for approach order supporting our WP. A copy can be provided to the
applicant as and when the decision of the Court
case is received.
Pay & Allowance for Since the individual was to retire voluntarily w.e.f.
30.04.97 30.4.97 (F/N) in keeping with the normal VR, Pay &
Allowance for 30.4.97 were not claimed. PPO was
accordingly made. Subsequently, in response to
the Order of CAT counting his services up to the
normal date of superannuation, his pension was
calculated from and concluding 30.04.97. Since the
pension has been calculated from 30.04.97 to
31.05.93 and beyond, the question of giving pay &
allowance for 30.04.97 does not arise.
Regarding TA/DA The individual has already been informed that the
1
Highlighted by us
3
Home Town was known to be Trichy as per the
service records and his temporary stay at kalian
could not be entertained for final TA/DA. In this
connection he has also been warned vide this office
letter No. EFA/A/ESTT/059 dated 01.08.98. It is
also a fact that the individual is now staying at
Trichy is his own house and claim for TA/DA to
Kalyan is thus not justifiable. In addition, it is
pertinent to mention that the individual had made
this request a part of the OS No. 629/03 to which an
effective reply was given by this office. The Hon’ble
CAT was pleased to ignore this part of the
application in its final judgement.
Regarding PLB arrears Arrears of PLB for 22 days for the year 93-94 to 97-
for 93-94 98 (Rs. 770/-) has been granted to the individual
vide EFA letter No. EFA/Cash/DD/2000 dated
14.03.01 as per details given below:
1993-94 He was not in the strength of EFA till
21.1.95
1993-94 (F/N) but he is eligible for the bonus from
OFT
for a total of 5 days OFT has been to do the needful
requested.
1995-96- 5 days- Rs. 416/-
1996-97- 4 days- Rs. 333/-
1997-98- 3 days- Res. 21 (Paid for the one month
while he was in service)
1998-99- Nil- As he voluntarily retired on 30.04.97.
Regarding joining time He was released from OFT on 29.06.94 to SAF,
between his release Kanpur. He has not joined at SAF Kanpur and
from Trichy and joining stayed back on leave and his transfer order was
at EFA amended to EFA; he joined at EFA on 21.01.95.
Service book entry indicates that the period from
30.0694 to 9.1.95 as leave admissible and period
from 10.01.95 to 20.01.95 as joining time, and he
has been taken on strength of EFA w.e.f. 21.01.95.
His contention with regard to joining time is
incorrect. However, his claim of having come to
EFA on 13.01.05 and thereafter daily up to 20.01.05
and debarred by GM/EFA from entering the Factory
is not acceptable.
Consequential Benefits The benefits was granted to the individual and
under OA No. 629 of subsequently a compliance report was filed by this
2003 office before the Hon’ble CAT. Hon’ble CAT was
pleased to order on 24.12.04 as follows: “Since the
orders of this Tribunal are complied with the
4
application is closed”. As such no further
comments are necessary on the subject.
Finally the individual All terminal benefits like revised pension, Gratuity,
was asked for all Commutation were granted to the individual taking
terminal benefits paid his service into account up to 31.05.03. Pension
to employees as on Identity Card was also issued to him on 20.12.05
31.05.03.
Not satisfied with this response, however, Shri Kaladharan moved his
first appeal before the Appellate Authority, Member (Personnel) OFB, Kolkata
on 30-9-06. The Member (Personnel) informed him that he is not the 1st
Appellate Authority in this case, with his letter of 3-10-06 forwarded the
application to Addl. D.G. OF, AV Hqrs. Avadi, upon which he received orders
of Appellate Authority from GM, EFA of 25-11-06 in his point-wise statement
as below:
Points raised/ Point-wise Reply information sought in appeal dated 13.9.06 received through AV Hq letter dated 3.11.06 by the Appellate Authority on 7.11.06 Paragraph 1: reply not As all the information asked for has already been satisfying- any payment furnished, the question of payment of any further required may be fees does not arise. intimated
Paragraph 2: Corrected It has been clearly stated that the service certificate
Certificate not providedhas been granted to you with reference to the
period during which you were in active employment
at EFA and “correction” thereof is not considered
necessary. We have accepted that the date of
appointment should read 1.1.63 instead of 1.1.68.
You were also informed in this connection that both
the decisions of the Hon’ble CAT in OAs filed by
you are now under review by the high Court,
Madras in a Writ Petition. As the service certificate
does not carry and financial implications, it was
decided that the correction if any would be issued
after the finalization of the case pending before the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras- along with any other
such modifications as may be ordered by the
Hon’ble High Court.
Point No. 1&2-denial of This point has already been replied to and the
5
copies-not satisfying- Appellate Authority does not consider it necessary
WP not numbered; to interfere with this, as the matter is sub-judice.
mistake committed by
EFA-duty of rectify in
terms of the order of
Hon’ble CAT
Point No. 3- (TA claim) The matter has been made amply clear in the PIO’s
and its sub paragraphs letter dated 25.5.2006. No further clarification is
1-7 considered necessary.
However in your own interest you may refer to SR
147 which clearly stipulates the element of
“settlement” and not a mere visits or sojourn at any
place- as seen in your case. The fact that you are
drawing your pension from Trichy is clearly an
indication that you have settled in Trichy and had no
such intentions with reference to kalian- which in
your own words is your daughter’s residence. We
have no comments on the enclosed extract from
some publication of HVF Avadi.
Point No.4: Non- PLP is not a term understood in this organisation.
payment of PLP However, the position regarding PL Bonus has
Arrears. been communicated to you. This is being reiterated
below:
Arrears of PLB for 22 days for the year 93-94 to 97-
98 (Rs. 770/-) has been granted to you vide EFA
letter No. EFA/Cash/DD/2000 dated 14.03.01 as
per details given below:
1995-96 -5 days – Rs. 416/-
1996-97 -4 days – Rs. 333/-
1997-98 -3 days -Rs. 21/- (Paid for the one month
while you were in service)
1998-99- Nil-As you voluntarily retired on 30.04.97.
1993-95: You were not on the strength of EP till
21.01.95 (F/N) but as you were eligible for bonus
from OFT for a total of 5days, OFT has been
requested to do the needful.
Regularisation of leave The period of leave referred to is confusing. From
wrongly adjusted and the contents of this paragraph it appears that there
encashment of leave. is some period of absence around the date of
joining in EFA in the month of January 1995. The
enclosed copy refers to a sanction as a special
case of 12 days of absence in the year 1997. The
entitlement of Casual Leave from the date of
implementation of the recommendations of the Vth
Central Pay Commission is 8 days, and the General
6
Manger could not have sanctioned 12 days to the
applicant under any circumstances. Secondly, the
format submitted by the individual is not the proper
leave application.
The position intimated to you by the PIO is
confirmed and needs no interference by the
appellate authority especially in the absence of any
valid proof.
Point 6 to pass orders Since the matter is now sub-judice, the same will be
for consequential acted upon based on the order of the Court when
benefits- in terms of delivered.
judgement order of
Hon’ble Cat in OS No. You have also alleged that the respondents are
629/03. “miss leading” the Hon’ble CAT. You are requested
to submit proper evidence in this regard for action
as deemed fit.
Last Point: Information Your request for consequential (Retrial) benefits
regarding grant of all extended to an NGO has also been answered. You
retrial (Retrial?) benefits are requested to point out specifically which
benefits being rightfully due to you have been
denied.
Appellant Shri Kaladharan has moved second appeal before us with the
following prayer:
“Correct information as per RTI Act 2005 and copies of
records as requested vide page 9 and refusal vide page
10.”
The appeal was heard through videoconference on 14-7-08. The
following are present at NIC Studio, Chennai :
Respondents
Shri Stanley Coutinho, PIO.
Shri Ramamurthy, Assistant.
Shri Kaladharan, who was contacted on the telephone, expressed his
inability to be present because of his ill-health.
We find that there has been a complete failure in adhering to time limits
mandated by the law. The original application was received on 20-6-06 at
DDG, AV Hqrs. Avadi, Chennai. Although Shri Stanley Coutinho had replied
to this on 13-7-06 to Shri A. Bandopadhyay, DDG, AV Group, AV Hqrs. no
copy was sent to appellant with the result that he received a response only
7
through Shri Coutinho’s letter of 25-8-06. Shri Coutinho submitted that this
was because the letter from Shri Bandopadhyay forwarding the application to
him asked only for a report from him, which he did vide letter of 13-7-06 i.e.
well within the time limit prescribed. This appears to have remained pending
with Shri Bandopadhyay till 22-8-06, the date on which Shri Coutinho received
the order of Shri Bandopadhyay to forward this to appellant Shri Kaladharan.
Shri Bandopadhyay has, therefore, rendered himself liable to penalty @ Rs.
250/- a day from 20-7-06 when the information became due to 22-8-06 when
he issued directions to Shri Coutinho to send a response to appellant Shri
Kaladharan.
On the question of substantive information sought Shri Coutinho
submitted that all the information sought had, in fact, been provided. However,
he agreed that as submitted in Shri Kaladharan’s first appeal the error
confirmed in his own letter of 13-7-06 showing his date of appointment as 1-1-
1963 against the service certificate which showed the date as 1-1-1968, which
is admittedly an error, no rectification has been done. Shri Coutinho
submitted that this was because the service certificate is now before the High
Court and therefore, tampering with that certificate will prejudice the case
being contested by the Engine Factory in that Hon’ble Court.
DECISION NOTICE
The issues before us are two:
1) Question of delay in response to the application, and
2) Any further information that remains to be provided;
On issue No.1 it is admitted that there has been a delay. We have also
identified that the delay has occurred at the level of Shri A. Bandopadhyay,
DDG, AV Hqrs. However, it is learnt that Shri Bandopadhyay has since
retired from service and therefore, any penalty will be infructuous. Although,
8
no penalty is, therefore, imposed, AV Hqrs. is cautioned to streamline the
servicing of RTI applications so as to ensure that such a delay does not
recur.
On issue No.2, since it is admitted by the Public Authority that there
has been an error in recording of date of appointment in the service certificate,
Shri Coutinho will issue a letter of addendum with regard to this error
within one week of the date of issue of this decision notice under
intimation to appellant Shri P. Kaladharan.
The appeal is thus partly allowed. Announced in the hearing. Notice of
this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
14-7-2008
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.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
14-7-2008
9