Central Information Commission
Musabbar vs Indian Army on 8 January, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/IARMY/A/2018/173798
In the matter of:
Musabbar
... Appellant
VS
1.Central Public Information Officer
Indian Army, Remount Training School & Depot
Post RTC Hempur - 244 716, Dist. Udham Singh Nagar,
Uttarakhand
2. Central Public Information Officer
RTI Cell, Addl. DG MT (AE),
G-6, D- 1 Wing, Sena Bhawan, Gate No. 4,
IHQ of MoD (Army), New Delhi - 110 011
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 02/08/2018 CPIO replied on : 18/10/2018 First appeal filed on : 09/11/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 08/12/2018 Second Appeal dated : 13/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 07/01/2021 Date of Decision : 07/01/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Col. A.K Goswami, CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide list (category-wise) regarding the appointments made during the year 1996 to 2015 and copies of the advertisements issued for the recruitment.1
2. Certified copy of the muster roll of the daily wage workers from the year 1995 to 2017.
3. Order/directions issued by DoPT and department pertaining, to the Saees workers working on temporary duty.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant vide written submissions requested the Commission to see the order in case no. CIC/PMOIN/A/2017/172750/MH&FW-BJ Dated 25.03.2019. He further submitted that this case is related to public interest. During the hearing he submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply in all the points. The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was given on 18.10.2018. He further submitted that details as available related to some specific years was given to the appellant. As far as the personal details of third partiesis concerned, these cannot be given, being exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In respect of daily wage workers they don't have a muster roll of such an old period. On a query, he submitted that the recent past muster rolls are available but the details of such persons also cannot be given to retain the confidentiality of the Army. In respect of point no. 3 he submitted that individual orders are issued in this regard from time to time.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the relevant paras of the order dated 25.03.2019 in case no. CIC/PMOIN/A/2017/172750/MH&FW-BJ held as follows:
"The Commission at the outset observed that the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI Application ought to have been provided keeping in view the larger public interest involved in the matter. It was felt that several pertinent issues regarding discrepancy in matters of compassionate appointment were raised by the Appellant in his Second Appeal which demanded appropriate action by the Public Authority. DECISION:2
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondents present at the hearing, the Commission directs DoP&T to issue instructions / guidelines to all the Ministries and Departments to exercise due diligence in notifying the compliance of the guidelines of DoP&T in respect of compassionate appointments made by all the concerned organizations / departments covered by its circular. Such information should be displayed on the website of each of the institutions governed by DoP&T for the benefit of employees and public at large. The compliance of the directives of the Commission should be done within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order." However, its relevance to this case was not clearly brought out by the appellant.
The CPIO and the FAA had provided a point-wise reply and therefore, the appellant was asked during the hearing to specify the points he is not satisfied with and he pointed out that he is not satisfied with all the points. However, the CPIO had thoroughly justified his reply. The Commission finds no flaw in the reply and the appellant could not substantiate the deficiency in the reply. Decision:
In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3