Respondent: HRA of the employee was stopped on account of unauthorised constructions over terrace of his leased quarter - On his retirement, it was found that the unauthorised construction had been removed - CIC: Available information has been provided
Since both the parties as well as the subject matter of the above mentioned appeals are same, these cases are clubbed together for hearing and disposal to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings.
The appellant sought the following information:
1. If the BSL Management has no circular regarding stopping of HRA of the employees to whom management has leased out quarters. Then why the deducted amount of HRA has not been refunded to Shri B N Verma, Staff No. 256273, Quarter No. 29, Sector-3A, B.S. City. Please let me know the reason and ground of this injustice. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.07.2014 seeking the above information. PIO vide his reply dated 26.07.2014 furnished information received from the concerned department indicating that as per policy of the company, HRA of Shri B N Verma was stopped for the period of October 2002 to September 2009 on account of unauthorised constructions over terrace of his leased quarter. The Respondent had stated that because of such reasons the refund of HRA for the period he held unauthorised constructions over the leased premises was not possible. The Applicant filed a first appeal on 20.08.2014 which was disposed of by the order dated 11.09.2014 confirming the opinion of the PIO and advising the Appellant to seek information against fresh query by way of a fresh RTI application.
During the hearing the Appellant reiterated his entire case and expressed dissatisfaction over the information received from the Respondent. He further clarified that his queries about lease of property and service conditions ought to be dealt separately, but the Respondent have deliberately sought to confuse the issues. The Respondent has submitted that answer has been provided to the Appellant’s RTI application, however in the First appeal the Appellant has questioned the PIO’s reply and sought fresh queries about service conditions etc. for which he has been advised to file fresh RTI application. The Commission finds that information as sought by the Appellant has been provided to him and there is no discrepancy in the order of the First Appellate Authority such that it would require any intervention by this Commission. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
The appellant sought the following information:
1) Copy of the inspection report regarding clearance of NDC against lease Qr. No.29/3A, B.S. City.
2) Name of the committee members who inspected Qr. No. 29/3A, B.S. City.
3) Whether committee members found any construction over the roof and terrace at the time of inspection for giving clearance for release of NDC.
4) If there was any construction found over the roof and terrace why the committee did not instruct for the demolition of the same by the allottee.
5) Who is responsible for submitting committee report without demolition of construction over the roof and terrace of 3A/29 for the release of NDC?
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.07.2014 seeking the above information. PIO vide his reply dated 09.08.2014 furnished information received from the concerned department which comprised of a point-wise response and a copy of the NDC. The said communication further conveyed that no unauthorised construction was observed at the time of issuance of the NDC. The Applicant filed a first appeal on 20.08.2014 which was disposed of by the order dated 04.10.2014 whereby the reply furnished by the ACPIO was upheld and an attested copy of the information was enclosed with the same.
During the hearing the Appellant reiterated his entire case and expressed dissatisfaction over the receipt of information against only point 3 from his application. He further elaborated that he has filed a case on behalf of Sh. B N Verma at the Labour Court against the Respondent authorities and required the information to support his case. The Respondent stated that the quarter was given to Sh. B N Verma sometime in the year 2001. It came to the notice of the Leasing Section of the Respondent authority that in 2002 unauthorised construction were built upon the terrace of the said leased property held by Mr. Verma. Accordingly notice was issued to him to which Sh. Verma failed to respond. When Sh. Verma retired in 2009, it was found that the unauthorised construction on his property had been removed and hence NDC was issued to him, which in itself was an Inspection report. Copy of the NDC has already been furnished to the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission observes that the information as available has been provided by the Respondent. The Commission is in agreement with the views of the respondent and finds no reason to intervene in the matter. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Shri S. P. Sinha v. Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL Bokaro in F. No.CIC/CC/A/2014/001698-YA F. No.CIC/CC/A/2014/002452-YA