Reason for denial of stagnation increment under RTI
The appellant filed a RTI application with the United India Insurance Company Limited, Jaipur seeking information pertaining to reasons for denial of stagnation increment to him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Later, on the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), part information was furnished to the appellant.
During the hearing before Central Information Commission (CIC), another PIO of the organisation from Chennai submitted that the matter of disclosure of ACRs was part of the petition filed by the Company before the Madras High Court who has granted stay on disclosure of ACR. He was not certain whether the order of the Madras High Court also covered stay on disclosure of overall ACR grading.
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO, Chennai to verify the fact of the ACR’s stay and subject to the order of the Madras High Court either provide or deny disclosure of grading awarded to the appellant for the years 2008 – 2010. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide a copy of the file notings (other than ACRs) according to which the matter of stopping of stagnation pay to the appellant was examined and finally approved by the competent authority.
Citation: Mr. Shyam Manohar Harit v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd in Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001978
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/359
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission