CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2008/00513 dated 19.5.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant - Dr. P. K. Srivastava
Respondent - Deptt. of Personnel & Training (DoPT)
Decision Announced 31.12.'09
Facts
:
By an application of 26.3.08 Dr. P. K. Srivastava, Dy. Director, Regional
Sericultural Research Station, Sahaspur, Dehradun (UK) applied to the
Secretary, DOPT seeking the following information:
“1. Whether the residency period mentioned under FCS
becomes operative to scientific personnel’s even before their
induction and re-designation in the FCS System or it
becomes operative only after their induction and grant of one
in situ promotion under the FCS System for the purpose of
next promotion.
2. Whether FCS System should be implemented from a cut
date to all the categories irrespective of any residency bar in
the initial stages of implementation of FCS as it was done in
Forest Research Institute during 1988 or it should be
implemented in phase wise manner as CSB is doing under
the pretext of guidelines of DoPT.
3. Whether DoPT has authorized CSB in any way to implement
FCS in distorted form in the name of guidelines of DoPT.”
On not receiving a response Dr Srivastava has made a complaint before
us on 14.5.08 pleading as follows:
“I have not received any information from Deptt. Of Personnel &
Training, Ministry of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India, New Delhi
so far although nearly 60 days have passed. Therefore, I request
you to kindly look into the matter and make necessary
arrangements for furnishal (sic) of information’s sought by me from
Deptt. Of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel & Training,
Govt. of India, New Delhi since my career is severely affected since
1996.”
1
In response to our complaint notice, we have received a letter of 9.10.09
from Ms. R. Gayathri, Under Secretary (RR) detailing the information sought as
follows:
“The information available with the undersigned is submitted as
below:-
1. The residency period becomes operative to scientific
personnel only after their induction and grant of in situ
promotion under the FCS system for the purpose of next
promotion.
2. The Flexible Complementing Scheme is implemented from
the date it is notified for the categories of scientists who hold
the posts identified and the service rendered in such post will
qualify for up gradation under FCS.
3. This Department has not received any such proposal from
Central Silk Board.”
A copy of this letter was also endorsed to complainant Dr. Srivastava. We
have, however, received a rejoinder from complainant Dr. Srivastava dated
16.10.09 the sum of which is as follows:
“That Under Secretary (RR), DOPT, Govt. of India who earlier
refused to furnish sought information’s vide letter dated 22.7.2008
as CPIO, DOPT, Govt. of India (Annexure-4), has now submitted
information’s available with them related to the aforesaid three
basic questions sought vide complaints are-10):-
i) The residency period becomes operative to scientific
personnel only after their induction and grant of in situ
promotion under the FCS system for the purpose of next
promotion.
ii) The Flexible Complementing Scheme is implemented from
the date it is notified for the categories of scientists who hold
the posts identified and the service rendered in such post will
qualify for up gradation under FCS.
iii) This Department has not received any such proposal from
Central Silk Board.
That had complainant received the same sought information’s
timely, he would have convinced Ministry of Textiles and Central
Silk Board to induct and give in-situ promotion to him to the post of
Scientist-D with effect from 30.8.2006, the date of implementation
of FCS in Central Silk Board without going to CAT, Allahabad.
Denial and delay in furnishal (sic) of aforesaid information’s by
CPIO, DOPT, Govt. of India has caused irreversible loss of status,2
dignity, mental peace and recurrent financial loss to the
complainant.
Therefore, suitable action may please be taken to grant justice and
compensate the recurrent losses incurred to the complainant.”
The sum of this complaint, therefore, is the admissibility of compensation
payable under sub-section (8) (b) of Sec. 19 of the RTI Act, 2005, which reads as
follows:
“19(8) In its decision the Central information Commission….has the
power to-
(b) “require the public authority to compensate the
complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;”
The complaint was heard on 24-12-2009. Only Dr. P.K. Srivastava,
complainant was present at NIC Studio, Dehradun. CPIO Ms. Gayathri, Under
Secretary (RR), DOPT when contacted on the telephone, submitted that she has
not received the notice of hearing. For this reason the hearing was adjourned to
31st December, 2009 at 10.00 A.M. Consequently, the case was heard once
more through videoconference on 31.12.2009. The following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio Dehradun
Dr. P. K. Srivastava
Respondent at CIC Chambers, New Delhi
Ms. Gayathri, Under SecretaryUnder Secretary Ms. Gayathri submitted that she has joined the
Department in May, 2008, and was not CPIO on receipt of the present request.
On having verified the documents on receipt of notice from this Commission, she
has found that the application was indeed received but no reply has been sent.
Nor has there been any appeal. Ms. Gayathri went on to explain that FCS was a
scheme applicable up to the level of Scientist ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ in the Central Silk
Board. Eligibility was, therefore, to be determined by the Central Silk Board and
promotion done by them under the Scheme. The DOPT has no role whatever in
this matter.
3
Complainant Dr. Srivastava, however, submitted that he had written in
detail of all the loss suffered by him and the compensation due and pleaded that
in compensation (1) the DOPT should give directions to the Central Silk Board to
provide Dr. Srivastava with promotion with retrospective effect, and (2) Dr.
Srivastava be compensated for the financial loss suffered which amounts to (i)
Rs. 40,000/- in terms of earning’s loss from his not having been promoted to a
higher grade of salary and (ii) Rs. 50,000/- for pursuit of his justified claim before
CAT, Allahabad, which required ten visits to that city and consequently frequent
travel and expense. A written copy of this request has been received by us on
Email.
In support of her arguments Ms. Gayathri has presented us with copies of
Office Memorandum of 9.11.98 and 17.7.02 bearing Nos. 2/41/97-PIC and AB-
14017/32/2002-Estt(RR) respectively regarding the Flexible Complementing
Scheme for Scientists in Scientific & Technological Departments. In the latter it
has been clarified as follows:
“From a number of references received in this Department, it
appears that an element of confusion exists in some scientific
departments on the date from which in situ promotions under FCS
are to be given effect. Promotions are made effective from a
prospective date after the competent authority has approved the
same. This is the general principle followed in promotions and this
principle is applicable in the case of in situ promotions under FCS
as well.
As a matter of fact, no occasion requiring application of promotion
with retrospective effect should arise in FCS cases, as it is provided
in the rules for scientific posts that the Assessment Boards shall
meet at least once a year to consider cases of in situ promotions.
Rule notified for scientific posts also contain a provision for review
of promotion by the Selection Committee/ Assessment Board twice
a year before 1st January and 1st July of every year and the
Selection Committee/ Assessment Board is required to make its
recommendation on promotion keeping in view these crucial dates
of 1st January and 1st July. The competent authority, which has to
take a final view based on these recommendations, shall ensure
that no promotion is granted with retrospective effect.’
4
DECISION NOTICE
As may be seen, this is a case, which at this stage concerns only the
measure of compensation payable to Dr. Srivastava u/s 19(8)(b), the information
sought by complainant having been provided. That compensation is payable is
not disputed and has been admitted by respondent Ms. Gayathri by admitting
that although the RTI application had indeed been received, there has been a
failure on the part of DOPT to respond. The only issue that remains, therefore, is
the measure of compensation payable.
In this regard this Commission has no authority to direct promotion or any
other action on personnel administration by any public authority as
“compensation” for any loss or detriment suffered. Such compensation can only
be in financial terms, provided that it is established that such a financial loss or
detriment has been suffered. In this case it is not clear to us as to how the failure
of the DOPT to provide the information sought has come in the way of Dr.
Srivastava’s promotion since that promotion was entirely the responsibility of the
Central Silk Board in which DOPT has no role whatever to play. Besides, as
clarified by Ms. Gayathri in the hearing, Dr. Srivastava has been appointed as a
Dy. Director in a grade equivalent to Scientist ‘C’ level only in 2005, which under
the scheme would render him eligible for promotion only in 2009. We cannot,
therefore, hold that Dr. Srivastava’s not having been promoted is a direct
consequence of the delay in obtaining of the information sought by him from
DOPT through his application of 26.3.08.
On the other hand the fact that Dr. Srivastava has been compelled to
pursue this matter in CAT can be directly attributed to the fact that the
information so readily available with the DOPT, and which could conceivably
have helped him to agitate his plea for promotion in the Central Silk Board, has
not been received by him. Dr. Srivastava has himself projected a loss of Rs.
5
50,000/-on this account. We have verified that 2nd A.C. train fare from Dehradun
to Allahabad of Sangam Express, (the only train available on this route) amounts
to Rs. 1162/-. Even allowing for ten visits to and from Allahabad in pursuance of
the CAT case, this will amount to Rs. 23240/-. Allowing for stay at a reasonable
priced hotel for at least two nights per visit would amount to an additional Rs.
20,000/-. This will, therefore, amount to a total compensation of Rs. 43,240/-,
which DOPT will now pay to complainant Dr. P. K. Srivastava within 15 working
days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
Reserved in the hearing to enable calculation of costs, this Decision is
announced on this thirty first day of December 2009, subsequent to the hearing.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
31.12.2009
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
31.12.2009
6