CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00794 dated 16.6.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri P.K. Pahuja
Respondent - Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT)
Facts
:
By application of 16.4.07 Shri P. K. Pahuja of Colaba, Mumbai, applied to
the CPIO, DoPT seeking the following information:
“Kindly clarity whether following instance does/ does not constitute
anomaly for stepping up of pay with reference to Junior under Para
2 (b) of Government of India Orders (27) below FR 22:
A senior official who is neither on deputation nor has refused
promotion; but draws less pay than that of junior official just
because junior had been favoured with adhoc promotion of 4
months or so prior to getting promotion by the senior one.
Illustration: Senior official got adhoc promotion to higher post from
7.4.1997; Junior Official got adhoc promotion from 5.12.1996.
Senior official’s promotion was regularized w.e.f. 19.8.07. Junior
official’s promotion was regularized w.e.f. 20.9.1997. Pay scales of
both the officials in the lower post and higher post were identical
and regular promotion to higher post was in continuation of adhoc
promotion.”
To this he received a reply from Ms. Urmila Rawat, Section Officer and
CPIO dated 29.4.07 as follows:
“Under the RTI Act 2005 the PIO is not obliged to furnish
clarification. It is, however, stated that as per Para 2 (c) of this
Dep’t. O. M. No. 4/7/92-Estt (pay-I) dated 4.1.93, if a senior joins
the higher post later than the junior for whatsoever reasons
whereby he draws less pay than the junior, in such cases the senior
cannot claim stepping up of pay at par with the junior.”
Not satisfied Shri Pahuja moved his first appeal before the Appellate
Authority, DoPT stating that the information supplied was not that he had asked,
as what he had sought was that whether the instance described by him
1
“constitute an anomaly under Para 2 (b) of Government of India Orders (27)
below FR 22. CPIO has, however, furnished the information with respect to
constitution of anomaly under Para 2 (c) which is irrelevant in the case.”
Upon this Ms. Rita Mathur, Director (Pay) and Appellate Authority again
examined the appeal and ordered as follows:
“The CPIO has informed the rule position contained in Para 2 (c) of
OM No. 4/7/92 Estt. Pay I dated 4th November 1993 that if a senior
joins the higher post later that the junior, for whatever reasons,
whereby he draws less pay than the junior in such cases, senior
cannot claim stepping up of pay.
As regards your specific query whether in the case illustrated by
you the less pay drawn by the senior would constitute an anomaly
under Para 2 (b), the position is clarified in Para 2 (b) itself. It has
clearly been stated that “the increased pay drawn by a junior either
due to adhoc officiating/ regular service rendered in higher posts for
periods earlier than the senior, cannot, therefore, be an anomaly in
strict sense of the term.”
Even if the senior is on deputation nor has refused promotion, if the
junior was given adhoc promotion prior to the senior due to which
he was drawing more pay than the senior it will not constitute an
anomaly in terms of Para 2 (b) of OM dated 4th November 1993.”
Appellant has then moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
“(1) It is requested kindly to issue appropriate directions to
DOPT-supreme body responsible for framing of norms/
guidelines for smooth, effective and efficient functioning of the
administration to cover the unique case of anomaly reported
by appellant as the same has not been contemplated/
visualized while issuing the guidelines with respect to
anomaly in pay fixation.
(2) DOPT may also be directed to develop a system whereby
officials at helm of affairs are held accountable and penalized
in proportion to the pay drawn by them at the time of indulging
malpractices that results in creation of artificial/ deliberate
anomaly in the pay of senior official that results not only
humiliation but also cause pecuniary loss for no fault of him
and onus to prove that the particular official did not indulge in
malpractice shall lay with him.”
2
The appeal was heard by Videoconference on 29.8.08. The following are
present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Mumbai.
Shri P. K. Pahuja.
Shri Harish Chander, assisting Shri P. K. Pahuja.
Respondents at CIC, New Delhi.
Mrs. Rita Mathur, Director.
Mrs. Urmila Rawat, Section Officer.
Shri Yogesh Mehta, Law Officer, NCW.
Shri Harish Chander submitted that the interpretation given by Dy. Secy.
Ms. Rawat is incorrect and he had, therefore, made the plea before us expecting
that we will set right the injustice. Ms. Rita Mathur on the other hand submitted
that there was no misinterpretation. The rules themselves are quite clear on the
question regarding which she has commented.
DECISION NOTICE
What appellant has sought from CPIO is in fact an opinion, which he is
entitled to seek in terms of “information” as defined in sec. 2(f). However, we
have repeatedly held that in light of sec. 2(f) opening with the information being
defined as being “material in any form”, simply an opinion held personally, and
therefore not in material form, does not constitute “opinion” defined as
information under the Right to Information Act. The DoPT, therefore, deserves to
be commended for having responded to the application and provided the
clarification sought by Shri Pahuja. If, therefore, on receiving this clarification,
appellant Sh. Pahuja has come to the conclusion that the rules are unjust, this
Commission is not the proper authority for him to approach to seek redress,
since our jurisdiction is limited to see that the information is provided, which in
this case it had been, or to recommend changes in rules / procedures unless we
consider that they require be brought into conformity with the RTI Act, in which
case alone can we issue direction u/s 19 (8) sub-section (a), or recommend as
much u/s 25(5).
3
This appeal being beyond our jurisdiction, therefore, is hereby dismissed.
However, appellant is advised that if aggrieved, on the basis of the information
that he has been provided, he may make a representation to the appropriate
authority which may either be Secretary DOPT or the Cabinet Secretary
presenting his objections to the rules and the interpretation given thereto in the
DoPT.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
29.8.2008
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
29.8.2008
4