Central Information Commission Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066 Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003523 Dated: 04.092013 Name of Appellant : Shri K. Lakshminarayanan Name of Respondent : Puducherry Power Corporation Ltd. Puducherry Date of Hearing : 07.08.2013 ORDER
Shri K. Lakshminarayanan, the appellant has filed this appeal dated 4.10.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Puducherry Power Corporation Ltd. (PPCL), Puducherry for providing misleading information in response to his RTI-request dated 27.4.2012. The matter came up for hearing on 07.08.2013 at Puducherry. The appellant was present whereas the respondents were represented by Shri K. Rama Subramanian, Managing Director/FAA, Shri P.R. Krishnan, Company Secretary and Shri R. Santosh, Executive Engineer (M).
2. The appellant through his RTI application dated 27.4.2012 sought information on ten queries, in respect of PPCL's letter No., 1971/PPCL/MD/2011- 12 dated 1.3.2012 addressed to the Labour Officer, Karaikal by the MG, PPCL that "Revision of scales of pay in respect of Grade C & D employees in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th and 6th CPC report as applicable to the Corporation vide G.O. MS No. 55/97/F3 dated 15.10.1997 and G.O. Ms. No. 66/F3/2008 dated 24.10.2008 issued by the Finance Department of Govt. of 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003523 Puducherry and subsequent Board decision No,. 28.4 dated 8.12.97 and 83.1 dated 19.11.08 respectively bas been implemented: while in the Judgement dated 11.2.2011 in the W.A. No. 519 of 2010, it has been Confessed by Mr. Sreenivasan learned Government Pleader, Puducherry that the above Board Resolution 87.6(a) has not been implemented so far before the Hon'ble High Court of Chennai. The appellant sought clarification on which date the revision of scales of pay in respect of Gr. C & D employees in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th and 6th CPC report as applicable to the Corporation vide G.O. dated 15.10.1997 and G.O. dated 24.10.2008 issued by the Finance Deptt. of Govt. of Puducherry and subsequent Board decision No,. 28.4 dated 8.12.97 and 83.1 dated 19.11.08 respectively, as stated in the letter No. 1971/PPCL/MD/2011-12 dated 1.3.2012 addressed to the Labour Officer, Karaikal by the MG, PPCL is implemented may be furnished along with other related issues. The PIO, PPCL, Puducherry vide letter No. 425/PPCL/ MD/CS/ RTI/ 2012-13 dated 2.6.2012 replied to the appellant on Query No. 5(a) and 5(b) of the RTI application. The PIO, PPCL, Project Office, Karaikal vide letter No. PPCL/TRP/EE(M)/Estt/2011-12/587 dated 12.6.2012 replied to the appellant on Point No. 1(a), (b),(c) and (d), 2, 3,4, 6, 7(a) and (b) of the RTI application.
3. Aggrieved with reply of the PIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 8.6.2012 agitated on appointment of two PIOs in the same public authority and delay in furnishing the information by the PIO, PPCL, Karaikal for certain queries before the FAA. The FAA vide order No. 707/PPCL/MD/CS/RTI/2012-13 dated 20.7.2012 informed the appellant that two PIOs were designated in the true spirit of the RTI Act for easy and quick disposal of the applications received under the RTI Act. Further as most of the activities are carried out in the Project site, in order to avoid delay in obtaining and submission of information, two PIOs have been designated. For the delay in providing information by the PIO, PPCL, Karaikal, the FAA observed that the PIO, Karaikal had furnished the information vide letter dated 13.6.2012. The FAA held that there seems to be no willful delay on the part of the PIO, PPCL, Karaikal and the queries sought for by the 3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003523 appellant have been found furnished by the PIOs, PPCL, Puducherry and PPCL, Karaikal.
4. During the hearing the respondent with regard to the designation of two PIOs in single public authority, state that two PIOs were designated in the true spirit of the RTI Act for easy and quick disposal of the applications received under the RTI Act. Further, as most of the activities are carried out in the Project site, in order to avoid delay in obtaining and submission of information, two PIOs have been designated. As regards, the revision of scales of pay in respect of Grade C and Grade D employees, all information available in this regard have already been forwarded to the appellant and it is not clear why allegation is being made time and again by the appellant. In fact in the later part of June, 2013 a notice was received from the lawyers of the appellant on the clarification of the implementation of the 5th and 6th CPC for which necessary reply was furnished along with a copy of letter addressed to the Government Pleader in regard to the WA No. 519 of 2010.
5. The Commission is of the view that requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. As far as appointing of more than one PIO in the same public authority is concerned, the Commission agrees with the contention put forth by the FAA in his order dated 20.7.2012, under the RTI Act there is no bar in designating more than one PIO in the same public authority.
The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 4 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003523 Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri . Lakshminarayanan, Secretary, PPCESWU, No. 6-B, Nagalakshmi Colony, Mudukku Theru, T.R. Pattinam, Karaikal-609606 (Puducherry) The PIO, Puducherry Power Corporation Ltd., No. 10, Second Cross, Jawahar Nagar, Boomiyanpet, Puducherry-605005.
The Managing Director/FAA, Puducherry Power Corporation Ltd., No. 10, Second Cross, Jawahar Nagar, Boomiyanpet, Puducherry-605005.