CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000579
Dated, the 07th August, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Rajesh Kumar
Respondents : Department of Expenditure
Matter came up for a hearing on 04.08.2009 in pursuance of
Commission’s notice dated 15.07.2009. Appellant was present in
person, while respondents were represented by CPIO, Ms.Renu Jain,
Deputy Secretary.
2. Appellant’s request contained in his RTI-application dated
11.08.2008 states the following:-
“Therefore You are kindly requested to clarify under the light of
6th CPC Report, the merger/up gradation of different scales
(Senior Observer, Scientific Assistant, Astt Meteorologist-II etc)
in hierarchy in IMD as merger is not feasible due to distinct
function / responsibilities and qualifications (Enclosed as Anx-I)
[sic] of the cadres in the scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000
and Rs.6500-10500, it seems to be fit case for upgradation as
para 1.2.20 at page no.13 of 6th CPC Report.”
3. As a background to the above query, appellant had elaborately
stated the purpose for which he was seeking the information which was
in the nature of soliciting the Department of Expenditure’s opinion on
merger of certain scales of pay for posts described by the appellant as
those carrying distinct functional responsibilities and qualifications.
4. It is seen that CPIO’s reply dated 12.12.2008 and Appellate
Authority’s order dated 07.02.2009, while explaining to the appellant
the nuances of the merger of pay-scales of certain categories, also
informed him that it was not open to the appellant to demand
explanations from the Department of Expenditure based upon the
scenario painted by him about what Pay Commission meant by
recommending merger of certain categories of pay-scales.
5. This Commission has received a number of RTI-applications in
appeal from employees and employees’ organizations relating to
AT-07082009-03.doc
Page 1 of 2
Department of Expenditure’s response to aspects of the Pay Commission
recommendations and their implementation and the meaning of certain
expressions used in these recommendations. Such applicants were
repeatedly advised that RTI was not a forum for them to seek
clarifications, elucidations and explanations from the government
regarding the employees’ own understanding of those recommendations
and their implementation. This is a matter of administrative action,
which cannot be subjected to RTI-query except when such an action is
available as a document or record or in any other tangible form which
can be given to the appellant on request. Demanding interpretation of
the laws, orders, recommendations is not permissible under the RTI Act,
as information-requests have to conform to the definition of
information in Section 2(f).
6. In view of the above, I’m not in a position to allow this appeal.
However, I will request the Department of Expenditure to set-up a
system whereby employees and their associations can bring up their
concerns for the response by the appropriate authority. This will
possibly check the tendency to use the RTI-Act-route to make the
Department of Expenditure react to these concerns.
7. Appeal closed.
8. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-07082009-03.doc
Page 2 of 2