ENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000263/SG/12650
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000263/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: : Mr. H.P. Sharma
R/o Kothi No. 614, Phase 1,
Mohali (Punjab). .
Respondent: : Ms. Vandana Aggarwal
CPIO & Director ,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi.
RTI application: 06/01/2010 transferred on 13/01/2010 from PMO
PIO reply: 10/02/2010
First appeal 09/03/2010
FAA order 29/04/2010
Second appeal 08/09/2010
Information sought:
The appellant had sent the RTI application to the PMO, from where it was transferred to the Cabinet
Secretariat. The appellant sought the following information:
(1) Whether the Govt. employees as well as the Ministers fall within the definition class of public servants
or else?
(2) Point No. 2 was co-related to point 1, in case the definition of public servant is different for Ministers
a copy of related record, if available may be provided.
(3) Point 3 is co-related to point 2, in case both Govt. employees and Ministers are covered under the
definition of public servant then any instruction available on record may be provided.
(4) Whether any material or rule of business exists on record, under which the Ministers could remain
missing from their official duty for weeks or months together?
(5) Point 5 was co-related to point 4, in case there is no material or rule of business exists allowing
prolonged absence of Ministers from their official duty, on what bases the Ministers could remain away
from their work for weeks/months together?
(6) While drawing pay & perks from the public exchequer, the Ministers may devote themselves for their
party works or for election ‘campaign leaving behind their official work unattended for weeks together.
Whether such prolonged absence from official work could be treated as a part of their official duty?
(7) In case personal or party work undertaken by the Ministers could be treated as part of their official
duty, there may be some rule of business or record available in this regard.
(8) Could a Minister draw pay & perks from the Govt. exchequer for the period of absence from official
duty to attend personal or party work?
(9) Name of Ministers who remained away from their official duty.
PIO’s reply:
I am directed to refer to the Prime Minister’s Office OM No. RTI/85/2010-PMR dated 13.1.2010
transferring your application dated 6.1.2010 (received in this Secretariat on 14.1.2 010) for providing
information in respect of points 1, 2,4 & 6 to 9.
2. The information sought by you is more in the nature of generic observations and cannot be considered
as ‘information’ as defined under section 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act,
2005.
FAA order:
After obtaining and carefully considering all the relevant documents and the factual position of the case, I
have come to the conclusion that the CPIO should re-examine the application on merits under the
provisions of the RTI Act. The matter is accordingly remanded back to the CPIO for providing
information sought by the appellant within 10 working days.
PIOs reply on 3 May 2010 after the order of the FAA:
The First Appellate Authority had directed the CPIO to re-examine the application on merits under the
provisions of RTI Act. The fundamental issues, raised by you, in your application dated 6.1.2010, is
whether government employees as well as Ministers falls within the definition/class of Public Servants.
The Cabinet Secretariat is not the public authority to provide interpretation of the subject mailer. You are,
therefore, requested to seek the clarification in the mailer from the Department of Legal Affairs.
Grounds for Second appeal:
On account of refusal to provide information by the CPIO and further due to non action by the appellate
authority in giving an appropriate decision on the first appeal, the appellant is preferring second appeal u/s
19 (3) of RTI Act before the Hon’ble CIC.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. H.P. Sharma on video conference from NIC-Chandigarh Studio;
Respondent : Ms. Vandana Aggarwal, CPIO & Director;
The PIO has stated that as per records available there are no specific definitions of whether
Ministers are public servant or not. Effectively the PIO states that to answer the queries of the Appellant
would mean having to interpret various provisions. Having said this, the Commission feels it is necessary
that the Government must define whether Ministers are public servant or not and this should be available
as a requirement of Section-4 declaration. The PIO states that defining the code of conduct for the
ministers is the role of the Home Ministry. The PIO states that there is no record of the attendance of the
Ministers which is being maintained. Once the attendance of the ministers is not marked all other queries
of the Appellant become irrelevant.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records has been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
01 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (JK)