Central Information Commission
Mahadeo D Mane vs Department Of Posts on 3 March, 2022
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/POSTS/A/2021/103328 +
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/103327 +
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/103326 +
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/103325 +
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/105873 +
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110133
Mahadeo D Mane ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Department of Posts,
O/o the Director of Accounts
(Postal), MH Circle, RTI Cell,
Nagpur - 440001, Maharashtra.
2. CPIO,
Department of Posts, O/o The
Chief Postmaster General
Maharashtra Circle, RTI Cell,
Mumbai-400001, Maharashtra .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 03/03/2022
Date of Decision : 03/03/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
1
Note - The above mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for the sake
of brevity and decisions as these are based on similar RTI Applications of the
same Appellant.
Relevant facts emerging from appeals:
S.No File RTI CPIO First Appeal FAA Order Second
No. Application replied on filed on dated Appeal filed
filed on on
1. 103328 04/09/2020 17/09/2020 22/09/2020 20/10/2020 15/01/2021
2. 103327 16/08/2020 15/09/2020 27/09/2020 20/10/2020 15/01/2021
3. 103326 16/08/2020 04/09/2020 22/09/2020 20/10/2020 15/01/2021
4. 103325 16/08/2020 04/09/2020 22/09/2020 20/10/2020 15/01/2021
5. 105873 16/08/2020 08/09/2020 27/09/2020 12/10/2020 15/01/2021
6. 110133 23/01/2020 19/02/2020 19/07/2020 07/10/2020 15/01/2021
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/103328
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.09.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly arrange to provide certified copy of GOI/Rule under which the officiating service rendered on last occasions in higher post (Supdt.) for following periods is not counted for increment in the scale of higher post (7500-12000).
02.10.2003 to 13.03.2004 08.09.2004 to 06.08.2005 09.08.2005 to 03.10.2005 Total 1 year 5 months and 8 days 1 increment and DNI 12.03.2006 The CPIO replied to the appellant on 17.09.2020 stating that information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.09.2020. FAA's order dated 20.10.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
2Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of denial of information by the CPIO. He further narrated his grievance regarding non-counting of his service in the higher post towards grant of increments by the Respondent organization.
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/103327 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.08.2020 seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer your letter no GE/MH-1/M.D.Mane/1898 dtd. 10.07.2017 and arrange to provide certified copy of GIO/Rule which allows authorities to treat the Option on record as null and void after issue of unforeseen order of Notional Reversion Or copy of rule / order which states that on issue of unforeseen orders the option on record automatically becomes null & void."
The CPIO informed the appellant on 15.09.2020 that no such orders as asked for are available at this end.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.09.2020. FAA's order dated 20.10.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the denial of information by the CPIO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"....while drawing substantive pay Rs. 8700 (ASPO), adhoc promotion to post of Supdt Rs. 9000 (8700+200) was granted wef 8.9.2004 which without break was followed by regular promotion (4.10.2005). Pay fixation option (FR 22(I) (u) (t)) exercised on regular promotion therefore was admissible as from the date of initial promotion (8.9.2004).......), As per option pay 9250 (8900+200) was fixed on 1.3.2005 and as per order (EX) of one time measure increment at Rs 9500 (9250+250) on 1.1.2006. Accordingly, on 1.1.2006 puy was revised without giving benefits of upgradation to Rs 22470 (9500x1.86=17670+GP 4800) DAP letter dtd. 10.07.2017 confirms this (Ex A).1 Pension wef 1.6.2012 and retirement benefits were also sanctioned correctly. The unforeseen order of Notional Reversion dtd 11.1.2012 (EX 4) implemented 3 after retirement, revised the date of refixation of pay & DNI from 1.3.2005 to 1.3.2006 (pre-revised) and the order (Ex 2) of one time measure increment again revised it to 1.1.2006 (pre-revised) pay fixation ultimately results in excess drawal of pay of Rs 250 (9250-9000) during the period from 1.3.2005 to 8.9.2005. The GOI 3 below FR23 (Ex 5) says that fresh option not necessary when date of next increment revised. Therefore as per option pay fixation on 1.1.2006 works out to Same amount of Rs 9500 (8900 +200 +200) and there by creates benefits of Rs 250 (9500-9250) and hence pay fixation as per option is/ was advantageous for me.
Instead of refixing my pay on revised date of pay fixation and DNI 1.1.2006, the DAP alleged that I have failed to revise the option as per order dtd 25.3.2003 (EX 6) & treated my option on record as null and void. Allowed pay Rs 9250 (8900+200) which was to be drawn on Notional Reversion wef 9.8.2005. Reduced pension and ordered recovery of pay, pension and retirement benefits drawn excess.
The order dtd 25.3.2003 (EX 6) and clarification on point of doubt no L of order dtd 29.1.2009 (EX 4 allow to Revise ONLY those options which turn to be disadvantageous in unforeseen developments such as Notional Reversion / change of rules etc. Both these orders do not declare that on issue of unforeseen orders earlier options become null and void or ask for fresh options or empowers any authority to treat the options on record as null and void. Further it is the responsibility of an individual to adjudge loss and act. Even in cases of loss, it is not compulsory to revise the options. The DAP by treating my option as null and void has interfered in my personal matter. As discussed above Option except five months is lifelong advantageous and v under the protection of GOI of FR 23 (EXO) there was no need to revised. Under such a clear and specific ruling position the allegations, act of treating option as null and void and interference in my personnel matter is willful, malafide & ill intended."
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/103326 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.08.2020 seeking the following information:4
".........Kindly provide certified copies of Rules/ GIOs empowering the pay fixing authority to deny such lawful benefits."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 04.09.2020 stating that information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.09.2020. FAA's order dated 20.10.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds-
"....The post of Supdt. (held), was upgraded wef 1..1..2006 by VI th CPC vide Section II part C of RPR 2008 (EX 1). Upgradation of post is to be done by using details given against the post in EX 1 by following the procedure given in illustration 4 A (EX 2) of RPR-2008. Irrespective of pay scale (7500-12000) the pay drawn (10000x1.86) is to be fixed with GP 4600 (EX 3) of present pay (6500- 10500) given against the post in column 3 initially and after adding one increment of 3% of (10000*1.86+4600) GP (4800) of upgraded scale becomes due (EX 4).
Instead of fixing pay as per rules and prescribed procedure, the DAP in order to avoid arithmetic calculations and without bothering for the directions of Govt issued vide para 2 (ii) of order dtd. 30.8.2008 (EX 5) had fixed the pay of upgraded post (Supdt.) by using non applicable concordance table. This wilful unlawful act has put me at recurring financial loss...."
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/103325 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.08.2020 seeking the following information:
"....Kindly provide certified copies of rule/order under which the arrears becoming due under rule 7(10) and related GIO under FR22 (l)are kept on hold / not granted."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 04.09.2020 stating that information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
5Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.09.2020. FAA's order dated 20.10.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied on the non-receipt of specific information, the Appellant approached the Commission. He further narrated his grievance regarding non-receipt of MACP benefit for which he has sought intervention of the Commission.
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/105873 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.08.2020 seeking the following information:
1. Order issued after receipt of replies from DAP Nagpur to the then APMG staff to examine my MACP entitlements.
2. The order / rule under which such orders were issued.
3. The GIO which allows the authority to count the promotions earned after 30 years of service but before 01.09.2008 towards the 3 financial upgradations of MACP though the MACP is all about 30 years of service only.
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 08.09.2020.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.09.2020. FAA's order dated 12.10.2020 observed as follows:-
"I have gone through the relevant documents of the case and submission of CPIO. On going through his RTI application, it is not clearly mentioned which information he is requesting. As per RTI Act, information sought should be specific and clear. However, CPIO has tried his best to providing the information vide his reply dated 14.09.2020. While examining his appeal dated 27.09.2020, it is also come on record that appellant is trying to ascertain various reasons from CPIO about his promotional matter which is out of purview of RTI Act. Further, quoting of wrong RTI application is clerical error. Further, appellant in his appeal has requested to grant MACP benefits as per rules which are service grievances which need to be settled by him taking with appropriate authorities. RTI Act is not for resolving grievances".6
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of information against point no. 3 of RTI Application. He further narrated his grievance regarding non- receipt of MACP benefit for which he has sought intervention of the Commission.
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110133 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.01.2020 seeking the following information:
1. Kindly provide copy of order issued by cadre controlling authority (CPMG) vide para 7 to form 1st screening committee to examine the cases of all Group B officers (para 3) to recommend MACP entitlements due w.e.f. 01.09.2008 on MACP's / ACP's becoming due in period prior to 01.09.2008 and on MACP's / ACP's becoming due after 01.09.2008 from the due dates of MACP's / ACP's.
2. Kindly provide copy of rule / order / para of annexure having provisions to deny III MACP / ACP becoming due vide para 28 B of annexure prior to issue of order upgrading the post of IP to officials earning 2 promotions within 20 years of service.
3. Kindly provide a copy of rule / order / para of annexure having provisions to deny the Ist MACP / ACP in GP 4800 / 5400 -PB 2 after 4 years and IInd MACP / ACP in GP 6600 (being the GP 5400 of PB 2 and PB 3 financially one and the same) becoming due vide para 5 and 2 of annexure in hierarchy of promotional post GP's as fixed on pre revised scales in column 6 of section I of part A of RPR 2008.
4. Kindly provide copy of rule / order / para of annexure having provisions to deny the IIIrd MACP / ACP becoming due in GP 7600 vide para 2 (next higher GP) of annexure and clarification no. 35 of OM 35034/1/97-Estt. (D) vol. 4 dtd. 18.07.2001. MACP being modified version of ACP orders of 1999 clarification no. 35 is applicable.
5. Kindly provide copy of rule / order / para of annexure having provisions to deny fixation / regularisation of GP 4800 into GP 8700 vide para 2 of annexure , of promotion in pre revised scale earned after III MACP / ACP in different / other GP than the available GP 7600 of III MACP / ACP.7
6. Kindly provide copy of rule / order / para of annexure having provisions to count the promotions earned after due dates of I , II & III rd MACP / ACP towards the financial upgradations of MACP / ACP , ignoring para 4 & 2 of annexure and the very concept of MACP which allows promotions 1, 2 & 3 respectively earned before completion of 10, 20 & 30 years of service to count towards the financial upgradations of MACP I , II & III respectively.
7. Kindly provide copy of rule / order / para of annexure having provisions to count and deduct 3 promotions (IP, ASP, Supdt.) earned before and after I ,II & III rd MACP/ ACP upto 01.09.2008 towards 3 financial up gradations of MACP /ACP.
The CPIO furnished a factual detailed reply to the appellant on 19.02.2020 by inviting his attention towards the specific hyperlink against points no. 2 to 7 of RTI Application. In addition to it, he further offered an opportunity of inspection of relevant MACP rulings to the Appellant on any working day.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2020. FAA's order dated 07.10.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of complete specific information. He further raised the following grounds -
"....As per para 7 of MACP order dtd 19.5.2009 (EX 1). the cadre controlling authority was bound to form Screening Committee to examine/ scrutinize the services of Gr B officers to recommend the MACP entitlements. However the CPIO in reply of information sought vide Ser no L intimated that no such order is available. His reply itself proves that Screening Committee was not formed. On my appeal the CPIO submits that as per DoPT order dtd 28.11.2013 is not bound to provide non available information. By simply saying information is not available he cannot get rid of his responsibilities. Decision of non forming of Screening committee affects me and hence CPIO is bound to give reasons vide Section 4(1)(d). Therefore his reply which does not contain reasons is an effort to mislead me.
on information sought vide Ser 2 to 7 instead of intimating Serial wise decisions have given a misleading and irrelevant reply 8 Instead of supplying certified copies of rules /orders as per para 13 of part I of DoPT order dtd 28.11.2013 the CPIO without bothering for age borned disability of eye sight has advised to refer website. I have not raised problems and questions. I have just sought certified copies of information on basis of which actions were taken. The FAA has upheld the decisions of CPIO without giving justification.."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent (s): Vaishali S Patil, AO (Admn) & Rep. of CPIO, Department of Posts - Nagpur along with F.B. Sayyed, APMG (Staff) & CPIO, Department of Posts- Mumbai present through audio-conference.
The Commission at the outset apprised the Appellant that the queries raised by him in all the averred RTI Applications are majorly in the nature of seeking clarifications based on speculations which do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act. In response to it, the Appellant narrated his grievance regarding non-receipt of MACP benefits and his increments /pay for which he has sought the intervention of the Commission.
No oral submissions as such have been tendered by the CPIOs during hearing.
However, to a query from the Commission, Vaishali S Patil, AO (Admn.) and Rep. of CPIO, DoP- Nagpur submitted that the Appellant had in the past filed numerous grievances on the PG portal of the organization which have all been duly replied by the competent authorities.
In case no. CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110133 -
At the behest of the Commission, F. B. Sayyed, APMG (Staff), DoP- Mumbai agreed to provide a copy of the relevant Rules/Guidelines/Notifications in response to points no. 2 to 7 of the RTI application to the Appellant.
Decision:
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission based on a perusal of the facts on records finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the 9 information sought in the RTI Applications (except in case no. CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110133) as well as the replies of the CPIO provided thereon as the queries raised by the Appellant do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for clarifications and interpretation to be drawn by the CPIO in reference to his speculative queries; to that extent the reply provided by the CPIO is in line with the letter and spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provided advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiahvs Administrative Officer &Ors[SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009],Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material 10 held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a 11 requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Further the issue raised by the Appellant regarding his MACP benefits and arrears of his pay thereon for which he has sought intervention of the Commission is purely a matter of grievance and is outside the scope of mandate of RTI Act. In this regard, the superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments over the course of time.
In particular, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."(Emphasis Supplied) And, more recently, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs. Gurpreet Kaur(W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma's case to emphasize as under:
"8. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the powers of the Commission are confined to the powers as stated in the RTI Act...."12
In view of the foregoing observations, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matters (except in case no. CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110133) and the replies of CPIOs' are upheld.
In case no. CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110133 -
The Commission although finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO in the instant Appeal as it adequately suffices the vague information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act; however, considering the hearing proceedings the CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of RTI Application with respect to points no. 2 to 7 and provide a copy of relevant available extracts of Rules/ Guidelines/Notifications in response to said points, free of costs to the Appellant. The said direction should be complied by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Lastly, the Commission empathizes with the concern of Appellant and advises him to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 13