In 2004, Tribunal ordered reinstatement of 37 out of about 1200 retrenched employees, including the appellant - Appellant asked for copy of the panel, employees retrenched earlier who were employed, terminal benefits given etc. - CIC: provide information5 Apr, 2014
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed three RTI applications with the PIO on 14.3.2012, 24.3.2012 and 4.4.2012 seeking information about his service matters, e.g., re-employment, eligibility for gratuity, gross salary in a particular pay scale, result of a screening test, etc. The addressee PIO forwarded these applications to the concerned PIOs on 27.3.2012 and 10.4.2012. The concerned PIO asked the appellant on 9.4.2012 to deposit photocopying charges of Rs.72/ (16+56) for information on first 2 RTI applications, which the appellant sent on 18.4.2012. The PIO provided the information 23.4.2012.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of CPIO, the appellant filed his first appeal on10.5.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA, after hearing the appellant and the CPIOs concerned on 25.5.2012, directed the CPIO on 14.6.2012 to provide to the appellant details of
(i) 721 nos. of surplus manpower as stated in the letter dated 10.2.1999; and
(ii) VRS scheme 1998 as per affidavit submitted by IRCON.
The appellant approached the Commission on 28.9.2012 in second appeal.
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing personally.
4. The appellant stated that he has submitted a number of RTI applications and while the respondent has provided him some information, but the information is so mixed up that the information provided is out of focus, confusing and not relevant for his purpose.
5. The respondent stated that the appellant had submitted three RTI applications dated 14.3.2012, 24.3.2012 and 4.4.2012. The respondent stated that they are also not clear about what the appellant is actually seeking, but what they could understand, is that the appellant is seeking information/documents on the following:
(i) Copy of the panel drawn up by the respondent organization consequent to the retrenchment effected in 1998;
(ii) The panel number of the appellant in context of the panel drawn up;
(iii) How many employees retrenched earlier have been reemployed;
(iv) How much time would it take for the respondent to reemploy him;
(v) Result of the screening test conducted on 18.3.1998;
(vi) Whether his name figures in the list 721 employees given by the respondent organization in reply to a Lok Sabha question;
(vii) Calculation sheet in context of the terminal benefits given by the respondent organization at the time his retrenchment.
6. The appellant further stated that in an affidavit filed before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) in April 2012, the respondent referred to the screening test and stated that those who would qualify in the test, would be reemployed subject to availability of vacancies.
7. Giving background of the case, the respondent stated that this matter had come up before the CGIT and an award was given in April 2004 ordering reinstatement of 37 out of about 1200 retrenched employees, including the appellant, with 50% back wages. The respondent further stated that the said award of CGIT was challenged by the respondent in Delhi High Court, who set aside the award of CGITin July 2011 on grounds of it being perverse as it was not well founded and not based on evidence. Thereafter, the appellant along with other co-employees challenged the order of Delhi High Court before the Division Bench of the same High Court who upheld the view of the single bench in Nov. 2012. The respondent stated that in this background the appellant has been asking questions.
8. The respondent is directed to
(i) provide information, as available, on the points in para 5 above;
(ii) enable the appellant to inspect the relevant documents; and
(iii) comply with the above within 30 days of this order.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
Citation: Shri Brajesh Kumar Yadav v. Ircon International Ltd., in Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2012/003269/VS/06226