CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000554 dated 5-5-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Balwant Singh
Respondent: Department of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Heard and decision announced 7.07.'10
FACTS
By an application of 23.1.2009 Shri Balwant Singh of Trinagar, Delhi
applied to CPIO Shri Harjit Singh, Dep’t. Of Pensions & Pensioner’s Welfare
seeking the following information:
‘1. That I had requested Ms. Rajni Rajdan (sic), Secretary
Pension & Pensioner Welfare and AR&PG Ministry of
Personnel, Public grievances and pensions, Department
of pension & Pensioner Welfare Lok Nayak Bhawan Khan
Market New Delhi-110003, vide my letter dated 25.9.2008
(copy enclosed) requesting her to inform that at what
stage, Govt. decision for applying multiplication factor of
1.86 (on basic pension +dearness pension) where
applicable & dearness relief of 24% as on 1.1.2006 was
dropped & fitment benefit equal to 40% of the pension
excluding effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance/
dearness relief on pension as recommended by 6th pay
commission was ordered to be given effect as per
resolution dated 29.8.2008 on the recommendation of 6th
pay commission. My letter was delivered in the office of
Ms. Rajni Rajdan on 26.9.2008.
2. That I have submitted two reminders on 31.10.2008 &
11.12.2008. My reminder dated 11.12.2008 was received
in the office on 12.12.2008.
3. I, humbly, request that information asked for by me may
please be arranged to be supplied to me along with a
copy of the decisions thereof.
To this, appellant Shri Balwant Singh received a response on 10.2.2009
from CPIO Shri Harjit Singh, Under Secretary informing him as follows:
“There was no decision of the Government for applying
multiplication factor of 1.86 ‘on basic pension +dearness
pension and dearness relief of 24% as on 1.1.2006’. Therefore,
there is no question of dropping any such decision. The Pay
commission recommended that ‘all past pensioners should be
allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the pension excluding1
the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance/ dearness relief
as pension 9in respect of pensioners retiring on or after
1.4.2004) and dearness pension (for other pensioners)
respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the
effect of conversion of 50% of dearness relief/ dearness
allowance as dearness pension/ dearness pay. Consequently,
dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the
effect of merger) has been taken for the purpose of computing
revised pension as on 1.1.2006′. This recommendation was
accepted by the government with the modification that fixation
pension shall be based on a multiplication factor of 1.86 i.e.
basic pension + dearness pension (wherever applicable) +
dearness relief of 24% as on 1.1.2006, instead of 1.74 the
manner of revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners in the OM
dated 1.9.2008 is in consonance with the decision of the
government in the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay
Commission, as contained in the Resolution dated 29.8.2008.”
Aggrieved, however, Shri Balwant Singh moved an appeal before Shri M.
P. Singh, Director (PP), Department of Pensios & Pensioners’ Welfare pleading
as follows: –
“The reply received on the subject is confusing as contents of
Pension sentence and closing sentence of Para 2 are quite
contradictive (sic).”
Upon this, Shri Balwant Singh received a response from Director (PP)
Shri M. P. Singh dated 23.3.2009 dismissing the appeal as below: –
“There is no contradiction in the reply given by the CPIO on
10.2.2009. The matter for revision of pension as given in Para
4.1 of the OM is in consonance with the decision of the
government on the recommendations of the Sixth Pay
commission. The figures of revised pension given in the ready
reckoner (Annexure-I to the OM dated 1.9.2008) are based on
the formula given in Para 4.1 of that OM. While arriving at the
figure of revised pension in the ready reckoner, the elements of
Dearness Pay, Dearness Relief and fitment benefit have been
rounded off to the next higher rupee.”
Appellant Shri Balwant Singh has then moved a second appeal before us
with the following prayer: –
“I may please be informed whether the modification of the
Govt. against item 12 of pay commission report have been
withdrawn/withheld/ ignored while faming rule 4.1
prescribed regulation of fixation of revised pension of
existing pensioners (office memorandum dated 1.9.2009
under no. F.38/37/08 P&PW (A) dated 1.9.2008). A copy of2
the authority for withdrawing/ withholding the approval of
govt. modification may please be supplied to me.
If rule 4.1 has been revised at some later date giving effect of
Govt. approved modification against item 12 of pay
commission recommendations, a copy of the revised rule 4.1
(ibid) is supplied to me.”
The appeal was heard on 7-7-2010. Only the following are present.
Respondents
Ms. Tripti P. Ghosh, Director
Shri Harjit Singh, Under Secretary
Although informed of the date of hearing through our letter of 1.7.2010
appellant Shri Balwant Singh opted not to be present.
DECISION NOTICE
The question of appellant Shri Balwant Singh in his initial application of
23.1.2009 seeking information on the stage at which the application of the
multiplication factor was ordered to be given effect to has been clearly
answered by CPIO Shri Harjit Singh informing Shri Balwant Singh that at no
stage was such a decision taken. What then Shri Balwant Singh has sought
thereafter, was a clarification of the rules made by Government, which he finds
contradictory. This is not a role for the CPIO or the Appellate Authority under
the RTI Act to perform. Shri Balwant Singh has, as can be seen raised new
questions at the level of the second appeal asking for copies of documents that
he had not sought earlier. The role of this Commission is only to ensure that
such information as is held by or under the control of a public authority is
provided by the CPIO when asked for. It does not extend to ordering disclosure
or supply of information that has not been asked for. For this purpose a citizen
requires to approach the CPIO u/s 6(1). In the present case, therefore, this
appeal is without merit under the RTI Act and is hereby dismissed.
Nevertheless, appellant Shri Balwant Singh is informed that should he
be aggrieved by a perceived contradiction in the government stand on the
question of a multiplication factor, he is free to approach the grievance
redress machinery of Government accessible at www.pgportal.gov.in
administered by the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring
3
System (CPGRSMS) under the Department of Administrative Reforms and
Public Grievances.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
7-7-2010
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 K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
7-7-2010
4