Complainant had a grievance for non receipt of PLI after opting for VRS - Amount for which the PLI provision was made & the amount actually paid was denied stating that the information was not available in the sought format - CIC: Appeal rejected
1. The complainant Shri Prafulla P. Vaidya, submitted RTI application dated 14.01.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), IFCI Ltd., New Delhi seeking action taken on his e-mails dated 18.7.2008, 1.10.2008 and 27.1.2009 and sought information on two queries (1) provision for payment of Performance Linked Incentive (PLI) amount to its staff in the accounts for the year ended 31.3.2008 on the basis of profit of Rs. 1022 crore recorded that year and sought to know the amount for which the provision was made and the number of employees with basis of computation of PLI amount; and (2) the amount that was actually paid as PLI to its employees in 2008-09 for the year 2008, with number of employees whom PLI was paid and excess provision remaining in accounts as at the end of year 31.3.2009 on his account.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 11.03.2014 informed the complainant that the information in the format sought was not available. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the complainant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 31.03.2014. The FAA, vide order dated 06.06.2014 held that the complainant himself has stated that the provision for payment of PLI was made in the accounts of IFCI Ltd, balance sheet being a public document, the appellant could have seen the balance-sheet for finding out the provisions made. Based on the judgements passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi whereby all petitions filed by VRS optees for PLI have been rejected. IFCI has since reversed the provisioning in its book of accounts. However, the appellant was advised to note that the provision was made based on the scheme framed for PLI and it was not with reference to each individual employee. However, the FAA provided the number of employees to whom the quarterly PLI had been made for the financial year 2007-08.
3. Thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint before the Commission.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant did not attend the hearing in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him. The respondents stated that as per Circular No. I/2008 dated 01.02.2008 relating to VRS-2008 for employees IFCI, no other benefit, including the post retirement medical benefits under the VRS and Medical Scheme of the IFCI shall be available to the employees opting for VRS. The total amount without interest, contributed by an employee under IFCI VRS shall be refunded to him. The benefits payable under the Scheme shall be in full and final settlement of all claims whatsoever, whether arising under the Scheme or otherwise to the employees (or to his nominee in case of death). An employee, who is voluntarily retired under the Scheme, will not have any claim against the IFCI whatsoever and no demand for dispute will be raised by him or on his behalf, whether for re-employment or compensation or back wages. There will be no revision in the voluntary retirement amount on account of pay revision or any other account in future. They further added that in this regard the complainant filed writ petition WP(c) 1319/2011 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 18.07.2013.Thereafter, appellant’s revision petition was also dismissed with cost by Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 06.05.2014. Later, the VRS optees of IFCI filed an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court (SLP No. 15453/2014). The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 26.09.2014 dismissed the SLP.
4. The Commission observes that the complainant had a grievance for non receipt of PLI for the year 2007-08 after opting for VRS. The respondents had appropriately replied to the complainant. Moreover, complainant’s writ petitions filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India were dismissed. No action is called for on the part of the Commission. The complaint is closed.
Citation: Shri Prafulla P. Vaidya v. IFCI Limited in Appeal: No. CIC/MP/C/2014/900253