Central Information Commission
Bharat K Srivastava vs Department Of Revenue on 12 April, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOFIN/A/2022/128520/DOREV
Bharat K Srivastava ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/O THE GENERAL MANAGER,
GOVT. OPIUM ANDALKALOID WORKS,
RTI CELL,GHAZIPUR, UP-233001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10/04/2023
Date of Decision : 10/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14/03/2022
CPIO replied on : 28/03/2022
First appeal filed on : 06/04/2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04/06/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.03.2022 with the G.M., Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works, Ghazipur seeking the following information:
"1. Whether or not the empanelment of unskilled workers in the year 2006 in pursuance of the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 1429 of 2003(Subhash Chandra and Ors. Vs. UoI) was effected?
2. Whether or not the empanelment aforesaid was carried out through a composite final seniority list in pursuance of the orders of the Central 1 Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 1429 )1 of 2003 (Subhash Chandra and Ors. Vs. Uol)?
3. Whether or not in pursuance of the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 1429 of 2003 (Subhash Chandra and Ors. Vs. Uol) the empanelment was undertaken in the year 2006? Kindly supply the exact date when the aforesaid exercise was undertaken.
4. Whether or not in pursuance of the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 1429 of 2003 (Subhash Chandra and Ors. Vs. Uol) the empanelment was undertaken in the year 2006 take .into consideration the OBC candidates at par with the general candidates as per the seniority maintained of the Seasonal workers from the year 1991 for the post of Unskilled worker?
5. Whether or not the following candidates were empanelled as unskilled workers in the year 2006 in pursuance of the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 1429 of 2003(Subhash Chandra and Ors. Vs. UoI). Kindly identify the candidates who have been granted the benefit of Old Pension Scheme and those who have been granted the benefit of New Pension Scheme from the list of candidates in the posting order No. 101/ LB dated 20.06.2006 made Annexure No.
- 1 to this application. Kindly also state the extant rules adhered to while undertaking the exercise of granting only some of the candidates the benefit of old Pension Scheme.
6. Kindly supply the date of the selection held in pursuance of the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 2429 of 2003(Subhash Chandra and Ors.
Vs. UoI) and the final list of empanelled candidates.
7. Whether or not the following candidates (1)Ram Nagina Singh Yadav, (2)Gandharva Singh Yadav, (3)Kashi Yadair, (4)Shyam Sunder Yadau, (5)Havaidar Yadau, (6)Kashi Singh Yadau, (7)Chandra Jeet Yadav, (8)Jhingan Singh Yadav, were not considered for grant of the benefit of MACP vide order dated 10.09- 2014?
8. Whether or not any extant rule envisage drawing distinction amongst the candidates empanelled in a single list of unskilled worker in the year 2006 form grant of the benefit of MRCP and/or the Old Pension Scheme?
9. Pleased convey a date when I can come in the offices of the CPIO, Government Opium And Alkaloid Works, Ghazipur for conducting an inspection and obtaining certified copies of all documents therein the records/files all inclusive with no 2 exceptions including file noting therein from within and from without in context of the xxx
10. Kindly ascertain that the aforementioned request is disposed of within the time limit prescribed for the same U/S 7 of Act 22 of 2005 as none of the information sought is exempt U/s 8 of the RTI Act. and more so the office of the Government Opium And Alkaloid Works, Ghazipur is a public office and is therefore bound under the mandate of the aforementioned Act for compliance of Section 4 and 25 for fullest disclosure of information sought which your offices are under oath to uphold under the constitution of India.
11. I have enclosed herewith an IPO of Rs.50/- bearing number: xxx where in Rs.10/- has been paid as costs for queries raised above, Rs.20/- has been paid for 5 hours of inspection and Rs.20/- as interim token fee for obtaining certified copies of all records all inclusive, appurtenant and relevant in the context of the queries raised above, the aforesaid inspection, excess charges if any shall be paid at the time of inspection..."
The CPIO, Department of Revenue furnished a reply to the appellant on 28.03.2022 stating as under:-
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.04.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
The CPIO, D/o Expenditure transferred the First appeal dated 04.06.2022 to the CPIO, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi on 12.04.2022 for its disposal.3
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Sandeep, Manager & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant while narrating the factual contents of the RTI Application stated that during pendency of the instant Appeal, he had received a reply from the CPIO on 27.06.2022 stating as under -
However, he expressed his astonishment with the fact that supporting documents against each points have not been supplied by the CPIO and such inaction of the CPIO may led to injustice to the unskilled workers on behalf of which he sought the requisite information.
The CPIO at the first instance questioned the maintainability of instant case as the RTI Application has not been addressed to the concerned CPIO rather it was filed before the General Manager of the Respondent organization who is not the CPIO as per Section 6(1)(a) of RTI Act. However, ignoring this aspect a point wise reply along with opportunity of inspection of relevant records was already offered to the Appellant; however, he did not avail of the said opportunity. No additional information is left at their end.4
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes at the outset that in a strict sense, the instant RTI Application has not been filed as per the requirement of Section 6(1)(a) of the RTI Act which provides as under:
"6. (1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to--
(a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;.."
As has been also evinced from the contents of RTI Application, it was addressed to the General Manager, Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works, Ghazipur and as an advocate, the Appellant is expected to understand the import of "CPIO of concerned public authority" envisaged under Section 6(1)(a) of the RTI Act. Yet, the Respondent CPIO & FAA have attempted to facilitate a reply to the Appellant in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act while also providing relevant clarification regarding the queries raised which are more in the nature of clarifications and do not concededly conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act. The transfer of the RTI Application to another public authority is considered as a benevolent action on the part of the Respondent CPIO.
Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter.
However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of Appellant and advises him to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6