CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000967 dated 26-10-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri V. P. Datta
Respondent: Department of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare (DoP),
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Heard & decision announced: 13.7.2010
FACTS
By an application of 11.6.2009 Shri V. P. Datta of Greater Kailash
Enclave-II, New Delhi applied to CPIO, DoP seeking the following information:
“1. Whether Supreme Court’s orders dated 29.11.2006
passed in CA 5269 of 2006 referred to in DoP’s Circular
No. 4/79/2006-P&PW(D), dated 6.9.2007 were brought to
the notice of the VIth Pay commission for consideration
while making their recommendation?
2. Whether the VIth Pay Commission made any specific
recommendations in respective of Government Servants
permanently absorbed in PSUs and had drawn one-time
terminal benefits i.e. 100% commutation of their pension
and later on became eligible for restoration of 1/3rd
pension as per Supreme Court judgement dated
15.12.96. I so please quote relevant para of the Report.
3. Whether the VIth Pay Commission have made any
recommendations regarding fixation of 1/3 pension for the
category of the Govt. servants referred to para 2 above,
pursuant to the Supreme Court decision referred to in
para 1 above.
DoP in para 2 (b) of their Circular No. 4/38/2008-P&PW(D)
dated 15.9.2008 have inter alia passed the following orders:-
The restore 1/3 pension shall be the sum of the following:
i. 1/3 of Full Pension as on 31.12.2005 ii. DP on full Pension as on 31.12.2005
iii. Dearness Relief up to AICPI (IW) average indexed 5.36
Base year 1982=100) i.e. @ 24% of Basic full pension plus
Dearness Pension
iv. Fitment weight age @ 40% of the full pension as on 31.12.2005As a result of the Supreme Court orders referred to in para 1
above my 1/3rd pension was raised from Rs. 994 to Rs. 2271
and arrears of 12 years were paid. My pension as on
31.12.2005 was, therefore, Rs. 2271.
4. Whether while fixing the restored 1/3 pension as on
1.1.06, the figure of Rs. 994 or Rs. 2271 will be taken into1
consideration. If Rs. 994, pleases specify reasons
therefore, because pension in my case as on 31.12.2005
was Rs. 2271 fixed in terms of DoP’s letter dated
6.9.2007 and has been drawn by me for 12 years.”
To this appellant Shri V. P. Datta received a response dated 23.6.2009
from Shri Amitabh Dwivedi, US, DOP informing him as follows:
“The reply to your query at S. No. 1, 2 & 3 is in negative. So far
as query at S. No. 4 is concerned it is submitted that you have
submitted certain facts and requested for reply to your queries.
COPIO is not required to create information or to interpret
information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants or
to furnish replied to hypothetical questions. Further, the Act
does not require the Public Information Officer to deduce some
conclusion from the material and supply the ‘conclusion’ so
deduced to the applicant. Under the RTI, only such information
is required to be supplied which already exists and is held by the
public authority or held under the control of the public authority.
Further, the Act does not require the Public Information Officer
to deduce some conclusion from the material and supply the
‘conclusion’ so deduced to the applicant. The PIO is required to
supply the material in the form as held by the public authority
and is not required to do research on behalf of the citizen to
deduce anything from the material and then supply to him.”
Aggrieved, Shri V. P. Datta moved an appeal before Appellate
Authority, Shri Raj Singh, Director (PW) with the following plea:-
“It will be seen from the facts narrated above that the PIO was
fully aware of the case and had full knowledge of it because he
himself is the signatory of the letter dated 6.9.2007. My query is
not hypothetical, as alleged, because it is based on facts and
figures.
I would, therefore, request that the information requested for
may kindly be made available to me.”
Shri Datta acknowledged that queries 1 to 3 had been replied to. Upon
this Shri Raj Singh, Director, (PW) dismissed the appeal on 11.8.2009 holding
as follows:-
“The undersigned has gone through the record of the CPIO and
found that the information has been furnished by the CPIO to
the requester/ appellant vide his letter dated 23.6.2009 referred
to in the preceding paragraph. I find that the information
furnished by CPIO is complete and correct and nothing has
been concealed therefore.”
2
This has brought Shri V. P. Datta to his second appeal before us with
the following prayer:-
“I appeal to the Hon’ble Commission that information
asked for may kindly be caused to be made available to me
at the earliest.”
Appellant Shri V. P. Datta has summarized his request in this appeal
as follows:-
“In a nutshell, the information asked for is simple-
Whether for purposes of fixation of my 1/3rd pension as on
1.1.2006, Rs. 994/- which was declared incorrect by the Andhra
Pradesh High Court and also by the Supreme Court) would be
taken as my 1/3rd pension as on 31.12.2005 or the figure of Rs.
2,271 fixed as per Supreme Court’s order circulated vide letter
dated 6.9.2007. If Rs. 994/-, why?”
Subsequently Shri Datta has followed up with a letter of 26.4.2010
submitting as follows:-
“My revised P.P.O. consequent to VIth Pay Commission Report
has not yet been issued by my office, i.e. Ministry of Railways.
In case the revised P.P.O. is issued, showing Rs. 994/- as 1/3rd
admissible pension as on 31.12.2005, it would involve a
recovery of approximately Rs. 70,000/- from the pension already
drawn by me from 1.1.2006 to date, because amount of my 1/3rd
pension as fixed on 1.1.2006 will get reduced as compared to
what I have been drawing as on 31.12.2005 as shown in
Annexure ‘A’. This defeats the very purpose of VI Pay
Commission’s Report.”
The appeal was heard on 13-7-2010. The following are present.
Shri Raj Singh, Director, (PW), DoP agreed that the policy on the subject
under discussion has changed in compliance with the order of Andhra Pradesh
High Court and Supreme Court cited by appellant Shri V. P. Datta. However,
the details of fixation of Pension has not, in this case been undertaken by the
DoP but by Shri Datta’s own parent department. There is no information,
therefore that the DoP has to offer to appellant Shri V. P. Datta other than that
which has been provided.
3
Appellant Shri Datta on the other hand submitted that as a result of
change in policy he has suffered losses. This has also been elucidated by him
in his letter of 26.4.2010 quoted by us above.
DECISION NOTICE
In this case it would appear that the information sought by appellant
Shri V. P. Datta has indeed been obtained by him and he now seeks redress
of a grievance that has arisen in consequence of a change in govt. policy.
The Information Commission is not a mechanism for grievance redress.
Appellant Shri V. P. Datta is advised to approach either the High Court or the
Supreme Court if in his view the orders of the Honourable Court have not
been complied with, or in the alternative approach the Centralized Public
Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRMS) administered by the
Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievance. This he can do
by entering the portal www.pgportal.gov.in. The present appeal before us is,
however, without RTI substance and is, therefore, dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
13-7-2010
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
13-7-2010
4