CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01528(SM) dated 03.10.2007
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 27.11.2008
Appellant : Ex. Sub. Sheoraj Singh
Respondents : Ministry of Defence
The Appellant was personally present.
On behalf of the respondents, the following were present:-
1. Shri Harbans Singh, Director (Pens), MOD
2. Shri J.B. Khokra, US (Pens) Depttt. Of ESW, MOD
3. Col. S.K. Khanna, Director (Pens), E-in-C Branch
4. Lt. Col. K.S. Bisht, GSO-1, E-in-C Branch
5. Lt. Col. B.L. Bhargava, SRO
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had approached the CPIO in the Ministry of Defence
seeking information about his past service to be counted as part of his Army
service. His application dated 12 October 2006 was apparently received much
later in the office of the CPIO. The CPIO, in his letter dated 12 April 2007, replied
to the Appellant explaining the position of his case. It is not clear if the Appellant
had approached the Appellate Authority within the Ministry of Defence at all in
appeal. However, there is a reply from the Deputy Secretary to the Government of
India in the Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare dated 18 September 2007 in
which the Appellant was again informed that his grievance against not counting
his past service rendered elsewhere as part of the Army service had been
considered at appropriate levels. The Appellant has approached this Commission
seeking redressal of his grievance.
3. At the beginning of the hearing, the Appellant reiterated his grievance. It
was explained to him that his application was not really so much for information
as defined under the Right to Information Act but was more by way of a grievance
against the competent authority for not counting his past service as part of his
Army service. Though the Appellant admitted that he was seeking redressal of a
grievance, he submitted that the competent authority had not yet acted on his
request. The Respondents filed photocopies of some records to show that the
Appellant, while in service, had several opportunities to indicate his option for
counting his past service as part of Army service as required but did not do so.
They also argued that if the Appellant had indicated some option prior to joining
the Army service as claimed by him, that could not be considered by the
competent authority as valid option. They even expressed doubts about the
authenticity of that particular document filed by the Appellant.
4. After considering the submissions made by both the sides and after closely
examining the documents, we are of the view that the information sought by the
Appellant from the CPIO was not exactly information as defined by the Right to
Information Act. He has a grievance which should be redressed through any
other channel available within the government or through law courts. From the
voluminous documents shown to us during the hearing, we noticed that the
Respondents had taken adequate care in processing the request of the Appellant
and had duly recommended his case as a special case to the competent authority
for counting his past service rendered elsewhere as part of the Army service but
the competent authority rejected the proposal on the ground that the Appellant
had not exercised his option after he joined the Army service. The Appellant was
advised during the hearing that whatever information was legitimately available
with the respondents had already been given to him and if he would like his
grievance to be addressed, he should approach the grievance redressal
mechanism within the Ministry of Defence or if he so desired could approach
appropriate law courts. With these remarks, the appeal is disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
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.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar