CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00825 dated 18.8.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri K. M. Naregal
Respondent - Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT)
Facts:
By an application of 11.1.07 Shri K. M. Naregal of Swami Vivekanand
College, Kolhapur, Maharashtra applied to CPIO, DoPT seeking the following
information:
1. “Whether the IFS Sr. Scale (ii) Jr. Adm. Grade (non functional) of
1.1.1986 and 1.1.1996 are the corresponding pay scales of the post
held by a pre 1986 retiree with more than 9 years service in IFS
cadre drawing his pay in the IFS Sr. Scale (a) Time scale of
1.1.1973 like me and if so whether those pay scales can be
adopted to revise the pension of such pre 1986 retiree under the
provisions of pension Revision orders of 10.2.1995 and 17.12.1998
and if not what are the reasons?
2. Both the pay Revision Notifications of 13.3.1987 and 17.10.1997
have prescribed the Jr. Adm. Grade as “non-functional” in Sr. Scale
(ii) and the placement in Sr. Scale (ii) from SR. Scale (i) is solely
subject to completion of nine years service in the IFS cadre and is
made automatic and the Regulations framed for absorption of an
officer in the Jr. adm. Grade are not made operational for such
placement. In such a situation is it correct to assume that Jr. Adm.
Grade is made applicable to IFS only w.e.f. 3.3.1988 and with such
assumption is it correct to deny the benefits of Sr. Scale (ii) to
revise the pension of pre 1986 retirees like myself even when that
pay scale corresponds to the pay scale of the post held by such pre
1986 retiree like my self and even when the OM of 10.2.1998 has
not excluded any corresponding pay scale on the basis of the
specification, status or character of such pay scale for revising the
pension of pre 1986 retiree?
3. The OM of 10.2.1998 has not provided on any excuse or under any
circumstances to adopt a lower pay scale than the corresponding
pay scale of the post last held by the pre 1986 retiree like myself
based on the wrongly assumed status of the scale as Jr. Adm.
Grade. The head of my Dept. revised my pension by adopting the
lower SR. Scale (i) pay scale instead of the corresponding pay of
Sr. Scale (ii) and thus has obliged me to loose nearly Rs. 1000/- pm
in my basis pension fulfill the letter and spirit of the OM of
1
10.2.1998 and if not how does the Government compensate the
loss suffered by me in my old age in payment of arrears of my
legitimate full pension and loss of interest?
4. I am a central Govt. Pensioner. I am in the All India Services
allocated and lending my services to Maharashtra Govt. Hence
ultimate responsibility to see that my pension is revised as per
Govt. orders rests with the Govt. of India. The head of my Dept
indulged in the bizarre acts of disowning his own commitment and
damaged my interests by misleading the appellate authority with
false information after defying legitimate instructions of Lok Ayukta
as explained in para III D (a) to D(h) of this application. Can the
Govt. of India remain as a silent spectator when my interests are
being demolished by the head of my Dept who borrowed my
service from Govt. of India particularly when Govt. of India was
made Res. No. 1 in my appeal? IS it not the responsibility of the
Central Govt to take remedial measures to restore the illegal
damages caused to my interests and the harassment caused to me
since last seven years?
5. Kindly obtain and send to me the pay scale of Jr. Scale of IFS
meant for direct recruits with 1 up to 4 years service in IFS cadre
prevailing on 1.1.1973 along with a copy of Govt. Notification
sanctioning such pay scale. I very earnestly request the Public
Information Officer to kindly obtain information separately for each
of the give quarries made above.”
To this he received a response of 27.2.2007 informing the applicant that he
had not attached an application fee. Upon this Shri Naregal moved a First
Appeal before Shri M.P.Singh, Director & First Appellate Authority on 30.4.07
stating that he had paid the fees but had not received response, as follows:
“Receipt of this application was acknowledged by the PIO on
15.1.2007. however I was asked to send the application fee of Rs.
10/- by demand draft in his letter F. No. 29018/6/2007 AIS II Dated
27.2.2007 (copy enclosed). This letter was posted on 3.6.2007 and
was received by me on 10.3.2007. Accordingly I forwarded the
Demand Draft No. 73779 of 10.3.2007 to that authority by Regd.
Post on 10.3.2007 receipt of which is acknowledge on 13.3.2007.
However he has not furnished the information sought for till this day
even though the period specified under subsection (1) of section 7
has expired.”
2
In response to this Shri M. P. Singh, Director, Dep’t. of Pension and
Pensioners’ Welfare, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions, in his
order of 9.5.07 advised as follows:
“I am passing this appeal to Shri Chaitanya Prasad, Director (S)
Room No. …A, North block, New Delhi (Department of Personnel &
Training) for appropriate decision. You may contact him for the
disposal of your appeal as appellate authority.”
Consequently by his letter of 21.5.07 Shri Ramakant Singh, Section Office
of the DoPT informed appellant Sh. Naregal as follows:
“by queries 1, 2, 3 and 4 of para III regarding Information sought
under Sec 6 (1) of RTI Act 2005 of your letter dated 11.1.2007, you
have sought opinion/ clarification which do not come under the
purview of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The definition of
information, as it occurs in Section 2 (f) lays down the scope of the
type of information a petitioner can seek. The underlined idea is
clearly that the petitioner’s entitlement for information is only in
respect of the categories of information mentioned in Section 2 (f).
It is not opened to a petitioner to ask, in the guise of seeking
information, questions to the public authorities about the nature and
quality of their action. In view of the position, the opinion/
clarification asked for by queries 1, 2, 3 and 4 cannot be given.”
In the meantime Shri Naregal had moved a first appeal addressed to
Director (S) DoPT on 21.5.07, consequent to which, by a letter of 4.6.07, he
received a call for hearing. On 17.6.07 Shri Naregal submitted a representation
to the First Appellate Authority Shri Chaitanya Prasad, Director (Services)
challenging the contents of the letter received from Shri Ramakant Singh,
Section Officer in the letter of 21.5.07. Subsequently, however, in his order of
21.6.07 Shri Chaitanya Prasad Director (S) has held as follows:
“Now, therefore, the undersigned as Appellate Authority dispose of
the appeal filed by Shri K. M. Naregal, IFS (Retd) u/s 19 (3) of the
RTI Act 2005 with the following observations:-
Central Information Commission, in its judgment dated 21.4.2006
(F. No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045) in another appeal, has stated that
the definition of information as it occurs in Section 2 (f), lays down
the scope of the type of information a petitioner can seek. The
underlined idea is clearly that the petitioner’s entitlement for
information is only in respect of the categories of information3
mentioned in Section 2 (f). It is not opened to a petitioner to ask, in
the guise of seeking information, questions to the public authorities
about the nature and quality of their action. The RTI Act does not
cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries, in
which a petitioner attempt to elicit answers to his questions with
prefixes, such as, why, what, when and whether. The petitioner’s
right extends only to seeking information, as defined in Section 2 (f)
either by pinpointing the file, document, paper or record, etc., or by
mentioning the type of information as may be available with the
specified public authority.
In light of the interpretations by the Central Information Commission
as mentioned above, the reply sent by Shri Rama Kant Singh,
Section Officer, AIS-II to the appellant vide letter No. 29018/6/2007-
AIS (II) dated 21.5.2007 is in order and as per the provisions of RTI
Act.”
Appellant’s prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:
“The appellate authority in his capacity as a public authority is
duty bound to take cognizance of such wrong action of the
head of my Dept and to take remedial measures to amend the
wrong action u/s 4 (1) (c ) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the interest of
honest implementation of government decision. Hence the
action of appellate authority in rejecting to supply the
information sought by me in the queries 1, 2, 3 and 4 of my
application dated 11.1.2007 by taking shelter under the
definition of the term “Information” u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005
is wrong. Therefore I earnestly request the Hon’ble
Commission to instruct the appellate authority to supply all
the information sought in my original application dated
11.1.2007 under queries 1, 2, 3 and 4.”
The appeal was scheduled for hearing on 2.3.2009. The following are
present:
Respondents
Ms. Harjot Kaur Bamhrah, Director (Services)
Shri G. C. Pandey, U.S. (AIS-III), CPIOAlthough arrangements were made for videoconference with NIC Mumbai,
appellant Shri Naregal has opted not to be present.
DECISION NOTICE
4
The plea of Shri Naregal, in his second appeal before us, as clarified by
him in his application of 17.7.’07, is complaint of what he considers “great
injustice” and has in fact stated that he wishes to ” combat such injustice by
obtaining authentic information regarding correct interpretation of orders from the
Dep’t” with regard to pension revision orders. Interpretation of laws, rules &
orders is not within the purview of the RTI Act and, therefore, the competence of
the CPIO. This is a matter of legal opinion, required to be agitated before the
competent Court. The appeal under the RTI Act is, therefore, unsustainable
and is, therefore, dismissed.
We, however, notice that there was undue delay in responding to the RTI
application. Also the first appeal seems to have initially been disposed of by a
Section Officer whereas Sec 19(1) requires that this be dealt with at the level of
an “officer senior in rank to the CPIO.” Although we do not propose penalty u/s
20(1) because the application lies outside the purview of the RTI Act, CPIO Shri
G. C. Pandey and appellate authority are cautioned to ensure that any
application received under the RTI law must be responded to within the
time frame and in the manner mandated by that law even if this is only to
reject admissibility under the law, lest the Department open itself to claims for
compensation.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
2.3.2009
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.
5
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
2.3.2009
6