ORDER
Background:
1. The General Secretary, Hindustan Cables Ltd., VRS Employees Welfare Association, Hyderabad applied to the Chairman & Managing Director, Hindustan Cables Ltd., Kolkata on 18th November 2005 seeking information on a number of issues having a bearing on the entitlement of VRS employees. The corporate office of HCL referred their application to its Hyderabad office on 2nd December 2005.
2. The local management thought it to be personal information which was exempt from disclosure. Accordingly a reply was sent to the Corporate Office on 6th January, 2006 which in turn sent a reply to the VRS Association on 12 January, 2006. The Associations appeal to first Appellate Authority dated 19th January, 2006 was decided on 2nd February 2006 in favour of the Appellants. The PIO accordingly wrote to the concerned departments for supply of information. The valuable information was given to the Applicant on 16th February 2006 except in regard to point No.11 of their letter dated 18th November 2005. This was also sent on 23rd February 2006.
3. The VRS Association had also sought information unconnected with the original matter. It related to the supply of copy of vouchers of work order pertaining to procurement of raw materials together with full details and documents in connection with all the raw materials.
4. Another issue that figured in the hearing was the representation of M. Suryanarayana Raju, Hyderabad, who asked for a copy of VRS Scheme applicable to HCL and fixation of his pay viz-a-viz Shri G. Adinarayana Reddy, another employee of the Company. He was given a copy of the circular applicable to the VRS instead of the VRS Scheme. Information about Shri G. Adinarayana Reddy was denied to him being in the nature of personal information. The Commission also deliberated on this matter suo moto.
5. The bench comprising Dr. O.P. Kejariwal and Dr. M.M. Ansari heard the matter. Shri N. Varaprasada Rao, PIO appeared on behalf of Respondent. No one appeared on the behalf of Appellant.
Decision:
6. In the case of supply of information to VRS Employees Association, the Respondent informed the Commission that all the information except that relating to Raw Materials was sent to the address given by Shri S.K. Bhasha, General Secretary of the Association, but the envelope came back undelivered. The Commission was fully convinced that the PIO, HCL, Hyderabad had done his best to collect and supply the information. In regard to information about raw materials, the Commission found that the information being asked for was non-specific and its collection and supply would un-necessarily diverse the scarce financial and man power resources of the Company.
7. During the hearing, the PIO pointed out to the harsh tone and words used by the Association in their communications. The Commission expressed its concern over the impolite language used by the requester. It directs the information seekers to couch their request in polite language and desist from using harsh language in their communications with the Respondents.
8. In regard to the M. Suryanarayana Rajus case, the Commission directed the PIO, HCL, Corporate Office, Kolkata to supply him a complete copy of the VRS Scheme and also the particulars about the pay scale of VRS benefit calculations of Shri Reddy within 15 days and report compliance within 21 days of the issue of this order. Information Commissioner Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy.