Central Information Commission
Mridula Sharma vs Indian Navy on 27 September, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/INAVY/A/2022/154141
Mridula Sharma .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Public
Information Officer,
Headquarters, Eastern Naval
Command, Naval Base Post,
Visakhapatnam - 530 014
CPIO
Naval Pension Office, C/o INS
Tanaji, Sion-Trombay Road,
Mankhurd, Mumbai - 400088
CPIO
Indian Navy, IHQ MoD (Navy),
Sena Bhawan, New Delhi -110011 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.09.2024
Date of Decision : 26.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.03.2022
CPIO replied on : 27.04.2022
First appeal filed on : 19.05.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.10.2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15.11.2022
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.03.2022 seeking the following information:
"I want to know that after the demise (on June 3, 2021) of Late CDR Yog Vashistha (52004-R), son of Brij Mohan Sharma, posted at Ship Building Center, Krishna Gate, Varuna Block, Visakhapatnam-530014, what amount (when and under which head) have been given to Yog's wife Neha Vashistha and daughters (Aditi Vashistha and Avani Vashistha)?
Please intimate me for any additional payments to be made for above information.
Note- Information is sought to be provided by registered post only.
I request you to follow Section 7(3) of the RTI Act 2005 for providing information/providing with photocopies of supporting documents related to the information requested above.
Below items (4.1 to 4.10) are for your kind information and consideration: 4.1 As per section 6(2) of the RTI Act 2005, "An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him."
4.2 As per section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005, In case, the requested information is held by another public authority, I request the PIO to transfer the application or part of it within FIVE days and immediately inform me about such transfer.
4.3 As per section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005, I request the PIO to provide the requested information within 30 days.
4.4 As per section 7(2) of the RTI Act 2005, In case of no decision received within 30 days, the PIO shall be deemed to have refused the request.
4.5 As per section 7(3) of the RTI Act 2005, In case, there are further fee required to provide the requested information, I request the PIO to inform me of the additional fee amount along with the calculations made to arrive at the amount.
Page 2 of 64.6 As per section 7(8) of the RTI Act 2005, In case of rejection of my application, I kindly request you to provide the reason for such rejection and not just quote a section of RTI. Also, I request you to provide the details of Appellate authority.
4.7 As per section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005, I request the PIO to provide the requested information in the form in which it is sought.
4.8 As per section 8(2) of the RTI Act 2005, "Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub- section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests."
4.9 As per section 10(2) of the RTI Act 2005, In case the requested information is exempt from disclosure by any other law, I request you to provide that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under RTI Act 2005. FYI: "The RTI Act has over-riding effect vis-Ã-vis other laws inasmuch as the provisions of the RTI Act would have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the RTI Act"
4.10 As per section 19(5) of the RTI Act 2005, " In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.04.2022 stating as under:
"Response to your RTI application based on inputs received from Ship Building Center, Visakhapatnam is as follows:
Ser Heads Amount Paid Remarks
A INBA Ex-Gratia Rs. 8,750.00 The balance amount, post
(Rs. 30,000/-) deduction expenditure of for
funeral and other payment
dues of the Late Officer,
paid by SBC(V)
B NWWA Grants
(Rs 10,000/-)
Page 3 of 6
c Insurance from NGIF Rs. 82,68087.00 Paid by DNPF (NGIS)
3. All other information i.e. DSOP Final Settlement, DLIS, Leave Encashment, DCRG and Family pension are not available with SBC(V) and is closely related to Naval Pension Office (NAVPEN). Hence, your application ibid is being hereby transferred to NAVPEN in accordance with section 6(3) of RTI Act. You are requested to liaise with NAVPEN for further correspondence in this regard."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.05.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2022, held as under:
"(क) नौसेना पें शन कार्ाालर् के पत्र LC/PEN/600/RTO/52004-R दिनााँक ११ जुलाई २२ / NAVPEN letter LC/PEN/600/RTO/52004-R dated 11 Jul 22.
(ख) एकीकृत मुख्र्ालर् रक्षा मंत्रालर् । केन्द्रीर् जन सूचना अधिकारी (नौसेना) के पत्र डी/एल/०८१२/१०१७९ दिनााँक १३ जुलाई २२ / IHQ MOD/ CPIO (N) even letter DL/0812/10179 dated 13 Jul 22.
(ग) आर टी आई पत्र DMAND/A/E/22/00279 दिनााँक १९ मई २२, जजसमें सूचना का अधिकार अधिननर्म, २००५ के अंतगात सूचना मांगी गई है , उनके संिर्ा में । / Refer to your letter DMAND/A/E/22/00279 dated 19 May 22, seeking information under RTI Act, 2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Ms. Mridula Sharma along with Mr. Avdhesh Vashistha, attended the hearing in person.
Respondent: Shri Lalit Kumar, CPIO, attended the hearing in person. Shri Abhishek Prabhat, CPIO, attended the hearing through VC.
The Appellant stated that she is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application. She added that she is the mother of Late CDR Yog Vashistha. She informed the bench that she has some dispute with her daughter-in-law and is only interested to see and meet her granddaughters for which she requested the Respondent for visiting rights.Page 4 of 6
Shri Lalit Kumar, CPIO, submitted that a suitable reply based on available records has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 27.04.2022. He added that Late CDR Yog Vashistha, martyred in June 2021 in Vishakhapatnam and as per their records, Late CDR Yog Vashistha, has not declared the Appellant as his legal heir and only wife (Smt. Neha Vashistha) and her daughters (Aditi Vashistha and Avani Vashistha) are the nominees and therefore, the information cannot be provided to the Appellant under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. He further offered a helping hand to the Appellant and advised her to visit their office to address her grievance and shared his contact details with the Appellant.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vimal Sain, PIO, vide letter dated 17.09.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"1.
Refer to CIC notice CIC/INAVY/A/2022/154141 dated 05 Sep 24 iro Smt Mridula Sharma scheduled at 1130 hrs on 19 Sep 24.
2. It is submitted that the response of HQENC/PIO vide letter PIO/0128/APR 22/05 dated 12 Jan 2024 holds good iro the CIC Hearing Notice at Para 1 above. The submission has been uploaded online vide self-generated File No. 602309. A copy of the same enclosed herewith for information and necessary action."
The contents of letter dated 12.01.2024 are as under:
"4. HQENC/PIO submission.
(a) All information pertaining to Eastern Naval Command regarding INBA, NWWA grant and insurance from NGIF has provided by PIO vide letter PIO/0128/APR 22/05 dated 27 Apr 22.
(b) Applicant has filed first appeal stating "No response from NAVPEN office, Mumbai." The applicant has not raised objection against information provided by HQENC/PIO. The appeal was further disposed of by NHQ/FAA vide letter DL/0812/10179 dated 05 Oct 22 under section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
(c) The CIC appeal filed by applicant pertains to NAVPEN office since information regarding DSOP Final Settlement, DLIS, Leave Encashment, Family Pension are available with NAVPEN.
5. In view of the above, it is submitted that information sought by the appellant pertaining to Eastern Naval Command has been provided as per RTI Act, 2005."
A written submission has been received from Shri Lalit Kumar, CPIO, vide letter dated 18.09.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
Page 5 of 6"(b) Exemption u/s 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. It is submitted that the disclosure of the sought information is liable to be denied under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the information pertains to third parties Smt. Neha Vashistha w/o Late Cdr Yog Vashistha (52004-R) and their daughters (Aditi Vashistha and Avani Vashistha).
Further, the furnishing the said information would not serve any larger public interest. In this regard, judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank v/s C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31 Aug 17 is relevant (copy enclosed).
(c) Legal Heir. It is submitted that as per the available records, only wife (Smt. Neha Vashistha) and her daughters (Aditi Vashistha and Avani Vashistha) are the nominees.
(copy of SPARSH Pension Forms is enclosed). The said SPARSH Pension Forms had been filled & signed by Late Cdr Yog Vashistha.
(d) Further, the CIC decision of Yagyasaini Kakkar v/s Central Bank on 19 Nov 18 has been erroneously quoted by the appellant as the facts and circumstances of the said case is not applicable to the present case.
4. In view of the above, the earlier information in this regard is maintained by CPIO (N). It is further requested that the clarifications at Para 3 above may be considered."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that so far as RTI Application is concerned, a suitable reply in terms of RTI Act has been given to the Appellant. The Respondent during the has volunteered to address the grievance of the Appellant on humanitarian grounds and therefore Shri Lalit Kumar, CPIO, is advised to render all possible help to the Appellant as offered during hearing. No further action is warranted in the instant case for adjudication under RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)