Early Times Report
Srinagar July 8: As State Forest Corporation (SFC) failed to provide information under RTI Act , about the payment of post retirement benefits which includes 6th pay commission arrears and DA to some of its employees , the State Information Commission (SIC) taking this matter seriously has now issued penalty show cause notices against two officers of the corporation who were held responsible to concealing the said information.
Details available with Early Times reveal that one Hafiz Zahoor Jan, a resident of Alamdar colony Rawalpora filed an application under Section 6 of the J&K RTI Act, 2009 before the PIO, J&K, State Forest Corporation (SFC) on 12-11-2014, wherein he sought name and designation of the officers who were paid 6th pay commission arrears. The RTI applicant also sought name and designation of the officers who were paid D.A. arrears.
The then PIO, JKSFC, Manzoor Ahmad Ahangar while invoking Section 5(4)(5) of the J&K RTI Act, 2009 sought assistance from Director Finance, J&K State Forest Corporation and Chief General Manager (Adm), J&K State Forest Corporation vide letter dated: 20-11-2014. In response to this communication, Chief General Manager (Adm), SFC vide letter dated: 26-11- 2014 informed the PIO that information so sought does not pertain to Administration Section.
The then Deputy Financial Advisor (Hq), JKSFC vide his letter dated: 06-12-2014 informed the PIO that this office has not paid any arrears on account of 6th pay/Cola/DA to any employee (Retired/In-service). Accordingly, PIO, JKSFC vide letter dated: 10-12-2014 forwarded these two communications received from Administration Section and the Finance Section to the information seeker which the appellant claimed to have been received by him.
Not satisfied with the response of PIO, appellant preferred first appeal before First Appellate Authority (FAA) J&K, State Forest Corporation claimed to have been received in his office on 23-12-2014. The then Managing Director-cum-First Appellate Authority (FAA) JKSFC did provide number of opportunities to the information seeker of being heard, but the information seeker abstained his appearance every time.
The then FAA under the provisions of RTI law was suppose to adjudicate the first appeal on ex-partie basis taking into consideration the record and facts of the case. But he did not pass any order. Having not received any response from the FAA (MD SFC) appellant approached State Information Commission (SIC) with his 2nd appeal on 16-04-2015.
The appellant vide his 2nd appeal has prayed that PIO be directed to provide information and action as warranted under law may taken against the authorities responsible for not providing the information under J&K RTI Act 2009.
According to SIC's decision, "The State Information Commission (SIC) has heard present FAA, present and then PIO, JKSFC and the appellant. The present Managing Director-cum-FAA, JKSFC submitted before the Commission that he did adjudicate the first appeal which was received by his predecessor vide his order dated: 11-03-2015, directing therein Deputy Financial Advisor to revisit the original RTI application of the appellant and provide the information to the PIO in the same manner as has
been asked in the RTI case of A.K.Raina and others in the order issued under this office No. 1383-87/PS/MD/SFC dated: 10-02-2015, so that the same is provided to the information seeker by the PIO. However, till filing of 2nd appeal in this Commission by the appellant on 16-04- 2015, information was not provided to the information seeker.
Hence, FAA's directions were not complied. Therefore, Managing Director-cum-FAA, JKSFC's attention is invited to Section 16(3) of the J&K RTI Act, 2009, which makes it incumbent on the FAA to recommend to the Commission for taking action against the PIO for not providing information. The genesis of the 2nd appeal reveals that post retirement benefits like gratuity, 6th Pay Commission arrears, D.A. arrears, etc were given to the selected persons but same benefits were denied to number of employees working in the corporation on the plea that finance were not available. The appellant has enclosed a list of persons who have been provided with certain post retirement benefits." |
