CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000132
Dated, the 26th May, 2009.
Appellant : Shri N.S. Dev
Respondents : Department of Expenditure
Pursuant to Commission’s notice dated 23.04.2009, this matter
was heard on 20.05.2009 when both parties were present.
2. This appeal is regarding disclosure of information pertaining to
item at Sl.No.(ii) of appellant’s RTI-application dated 24.10.2008. This
reads as follows:-
“ii) By virtue of notification mentioned above, Govt. has
granted Non-functional grade of Rs.8000-13500 with Group ‘B’
Officers of CSS/CSSS, Department of Railways, Department of
Income Tax (Income Tax Officers), Department of Customs &
Central Excise (Superintendent / Appraisers), and Post &
Telegraph etc. after four years of service. While the Section
officers of CSS and officers of Railways have been granted the
benefit of Non-functional grade of Rs.8000-13500 with Grade Pay
of Rs.5400 in PB-3, the Income Tax Officers, Superintendents &
Appraisers of the Department of Customs & Central Excise and
Officers of Department of Posts have been given this benefit in
PB-2 only and not in PB-3. I request you to kindly provide the
information about this discrepancy. Also kindly make available
the copies of the relevant portions of the Ministry’s file in which
decision regarding placement of CSS/CSSS and Railway Officers in
PB-3 and the placement of the Income Tax Officers and
Superintendents & Appraisers of the Department of Customs &
Central Excise in PB-2 has been taken.”
3. The text of this query is not about any identifiable information
within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is more in the
nature of engaging the respondents in a dialogue about certain
discrepancy which appellant assumes exists regarding placement of
CSS/CSSS and Railway Officers in PB-3 and Income Tax Officers and
Superintendents and Appraisers of the Department of Customs and
Central Excise in PB-2.
AT-26052009-05.doc
Page 1 of 2
4. This information has been rightly declined as it is non-specific and
interrogatory. Respondents are not obliged to provide explanations and
reasons to the appellant based upon his assumptions and surmises.
5. There shall be no further disclosure obligation in this appeal.
6. Appeal closed.
7. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-26052009-05.doc
Page 2 of 2