APPEAL against PIO's Reply

UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

SEEA/P/PF/0610
Sept. 02, 2006

Executive Director & I/c
RDCIS/ SAIL,
& Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005,
Ranchi-834002.

Sub: Incomplete, unsatisfactory & incorrect information on Payment of P.F. Revenue surplus for the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 by HSPF Trust to its members.

Ref.: Your PIO letter No. RD/RI(05)/12 dated 29/08/2006

Dear Sir,

This has reference to our letter No. SEEA/P/PF/0609 dated August 05, 2006 and above mentioned reply by your PIO (copies enclosed.). I would like to state that the reply contains no valuable or meaningful information with respect to the issues raised. Therefore, it amounts to violation of the RTI Act 2005 in both letter and spirit. In view of this I request you to kindly provide us with the correct and detailed (understandable) information with Xerox copies of the following documents.

1. Copies of correspondence with Finance Directorate of SAIL’s Corporate Office and their Directive (as mentioned in Para 1 of your PIO’s reply).

2. Copies of the Minutes of the meeting amending Rule 24 of HSPF Trust and its date of implementation.

3. Copies of records showing the status and compliance of ‘modified’ Rule 24 during distribution of surplus revenue on 10th January 2003 and December 2003 when the entire decision of CPFC depended on that.

4. Copies of records to show why total Surplus Revenue was not distributed to the members even after CPFC’s categorical order citing Rule 24.

5. A copy of the information alongwith enclosures, if any, furnished to RPFC, Ranchi (as mentioned in Para 2 of your PIO’s letter).

I would also like to point out that your PIO’s reply wrongly claims that the order of the CPFC in Para 2 of his letter dated 21st Nov 2003 have been adhered to. To clarify the same I quote the relevant Para of his order below for your ready reference.

”As per Rule 24 of the HSPF Trust Rules the entire surplus earned by the Trust in a year is to be distributed among the members of the Trust on pro-rata basis in the same year which implies that surplus available with the Trust is to be distributed among all members of the Trust existing between 96-97 to the date of declaration of surplus interest”.
The reply carries wrong information on the following counts:

* The entire surplus was never ever distributed. In spite of CPFC’s aforesaid order for full payment only half of the Surplus Revenue accumulated between 1996-97 and 2000-2001 was distributed.

* It was never ever distributed after the completion of each financial year between 1996-97 and 2000-2001 but only in 2003.

* ‘Modified’ Rule 24 was non-existent till 2003 as CPFC has referred to this for making his order favourable to the members of the Trust and HSPF accepted it for paying half of the Surplus Revenue to Ex-Employees. The issue is why full payment was not made to all current and Ex-employees after that order.

It is clear by now that the reply carries wrong information with respect to the observance of CPFC’s order, relevant provisions of the PF Act and thus violates the PF Act as well as HSPF Rules 1966.

Based on the aforesaid facts I request you, therefore, to kindly furnish us with the detailed and correct information including copies of documents as mentioned above as also the copies of relevant notings on the files.

Thanking You,

Yours faithfully,


(V.N.Sharma)