CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00460
Dated, the 01st August, 2008.
Appellant : Ms.Sushila Devi
Respondents : Accountant General (A&E), Punjab
This second-appeal by Ms.Sushila Devi (appellant) came up for hearing
on 31.07.2008 pursuant to Commission’s hearing notice dated 02.07.2008.
Appellant was present through her rep., Shri Parkash Chand, while the
respondents were represented by Shri B.S. Sandhu, D.A.G. and Shri Jaswant
Singh, A.A.O.
2. Through his RTI-request dated 05.09.2007, appellant had made the
following queries:-
“(a) Number of widower(s), who were awarded family pension, (in
respect of female Punjab Government employee(s), who died while in
service, leaving behind, son/daughter OR no child,) depriving son /
daughter OR parent(s). (as the case may be) since after the issue of
government orders dt.16.7.1998, and reasons therefor, in each case.
(b) Number of mother(s) (in respect of Punjab Government
Employee(s) died while in service leaving behind neither a widow nor a
child), deprived of family pension since after 24.7.2000, by discriminating
on grounds of sex, given preference to fathers in the wake of enforcement
of para 2 of Punjab government letter No.1/74/90-1FPIII/2000/8020
dated 24.7.2000, and reasons therefor in each case.
(c) Supply information in the form under section 7(8) of the ibid Act,
about the action taken / proposed to be taken on my letter dt.11.8.07 (copy
enclosed) [sic]”
3. CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant through his communication dated
01.10.2007. The Appellate Authority decided the matter through his order dated
16.11.2007.
4. Appellate Authority recorded the following findings:-
“Before me for consideration is an appeal dated 19.10.2007 received in this
office on 24.10.2007 filed by Smt. Sushila Devi, against the orders of the Public
Page 1 of 3
Information Officer conveyed to her vide no. Admn-1/RTI Act 2005/07-08/2317
dated 1.10.2007. The main grounds of the appeal are as under:
(i) The information given in first five lines & last three lines was neither
asked nor required to be given.
(ii) As per Govt. of India orders dated 16.07.98, contained in para 4(ii) it is
no where mentioned that mother cannot apply for Family Pension and
instead thereof living father has to apply. Rather “Widower” has been
deleted and ‘Parents’ included in the above orders defining the term
Family of Govt. employee who died in service for purposes of Family
Pension.
(iii) That the information desired by her i.e.
(a) Number of widowers who were awarded family pension and
(b) Number of mothers who died while in service leaving behind
neither a widow nor a child is very much available in the Govt.
record of AG, Pb. Who issue the Family Pension Payment Orders
allotting serial numbers in the PPOs.
2. I have pursued all the relevant records in regard to the submission of the
appellant. Before addressing the grounds of appeal I would like to mention
that:-
(i) The appellant wants to get the pension case of her late daughter
settled under the garb of the RTI Act. I may make it clear that under the
Act only information is to be supplied by the Public Authority and no
decision on merits of a pension case can be taken under the RTI Act
which can only be taken by a Competent Authority under the extant
rules/instructions. Similarly a decision taken by a competent authority
under the extant rules/orders can’t be reviewed under the Act ibid.
In my opinion, as per the spirit of the RTI Act, the appellant may get the
desired information/documents which she may use before any competent
authority or forum to pursue any matter within their competence and
jurisdiction. Further, the RTI Act entitles a citizen to seek and receive
information from public authorities but it does not allow them to ask as
to why a case has been handled in a certain way and not differently. In
the instant case, the appellant who is pursuing to get the benefit of
gratuity of her late daughter Dr. Rakesh Lata, EX-AMO wishes to have
the same reviewed under the Act ibid which in my opinion is not in
consonance with the provisions of the Act as a decision on merit in
regard to pension entitlements of a retiree can be taken only by a
Competent Authority under the 5rules and not by the Public Information
Officer under the act ibid.
(ii) I find that the PPOs are issued by this office by allotting the PPO
numbers to the retirees but no data is kept in the normal functioning of
the office for the categories of pensioners which is desired by the
appellant i.e. number of widows who were awarded Family pension and
number of mothers who died while in service leaving behind neither a
widow nor a child. As such the information desired by the appellantPage 2 of 3
cannot be supplied being not maintained in the office records in the
normal functioning of the office.
(iii) I have been informed that reply to the letter dated 11.08.2007 has
already been furnished to the appellant vide no. Pen-12/R-78/03-
04/18355 dated 13.11.2007.
4. Under the circumstances, I am satisfied that the PIO has given the
information as available in office records and there is no laxity or
negligence on his part.
5. In view of above, I find that there is nothing further to be supplied under
the RTI Act.
6. The appellant is however free to approach the competent authority for
settlement of pension case of Late Dr. Rakesh Lata on merits.
7. The appeal is disposed off in above terms.”
5. During the hearing, it turned out that the information which the appellant
is seeking is actually held by the appropriate public authority of the State
Government of Punjab and not by the Accountant General (A&E) ― the present
respondents. As such, the appellant should address the query to the State
Government of Punjab, which brings it within the jurisdiction of the Punjab State
Information Commission.
6. Further, as has been elaborately spelt-out by the above order of the
Appellate Authority, much of the information which the appellant is seeking is in
the nature of soliciting explanations of the public authority and demanding to
know why the rules were interpreted in a certain manner and not differently.
This takes it beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
7. In view of the above, this appeal cannot be allowed. The contention of the
Appellate Authority is upheld. Appeal closed.
8. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –
Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH )
Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar
Page 3 of 3