Central Information Commission
Shri Vithal Narsingrao Patil vs Dept. Of Posts, Osmanabad on 4 August, 2009
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/000537
Dated August 4, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Shri Vithal Narsingrao Patil
Name of the Public Authority : Dept. of Posts, Osmanabad
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI application dt.25.9.08 with the CPIO, DoP, Osmanabad. He requested for information regarding antedated increment from June to January every year. The CPIO replied on 23.10.08. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt 24.11.08 with the Appellate Authority. On not receiving any reply from the Appellate Authority, he filed a second appeal dt.30.3.09 before the CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing on August 4, 2009.
3. The Supdt. of PO's Osmanabad Dn vide letter dated 27.7.09 authorized Mr. V.S. Panchal, Accountant and Mr. R.K. Bhagwat, ASP, Ommanabad to represent as Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the memo on antedated increment which was issued by CPIO/SPOs Osmanabad dated 13.5.98 was pertaining to the PA cadre of official. The second memo of TBOP cadre was issued on 10.9.97 and related to TBOP promotion with date of increment as 1st June every year. The memo dated 13.5.98 was not cancelled or modified by any authority and was effective up to the date of promotion to TBOP cadre and in the said memo the date of increment of the official was 1st January every year. The Respondent also added that the Appellant is demanding the date of increment to be 1st January every year but as per memo dated 10.9.97 the date of increment comes to 1st June every year. He added that however, if the official could have given option regarding increment and if he could have opted for 1st January every year, then his increment could have been drawn on 1st January every year. According to the Respondent, as per file records /option dated 20.10.97, the date of increment appears to have been noted as 19.6.98 and then cancelled. Hence the option has been taken as nil. Had this date been taken into consideration, the date of increment would be 1st June every year. He added that that the official had not exercised his option at the time of promotion to TBOP cadre under Rule 22 1 (i) (a) of FRSR 1. As regards refund of recovery, the Respondent submitted that the increment was wrongly drawn on 1st January which was later regularized and the excess paid amount of Rs.5394/- w.e.f 1.1.98 to 31.5.98 every year upto 2003, has been recovered from the salary of the Appellant of the month of November, 2003 and not November, 2005. With regard to delay in providing information, the Respondent stated that the service book was sent to DA(P) Nagpur on 28.11.08 for revision of pension as per 6th Pay Commission and when it was returned by DA(P) Nagpur again PMG Aurangabad supplied to the Appellant the required information on 24.7.09. The Commission after hearing the submission of the Respondent holds that all available information has been provided and dismisses the appeal.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Asst. Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Vithal Narsingrao Patil Ex-Sub Post Master At Post Murum Osmanabad 413 601 Maharashtra
2. The CPIO & Supdt. of Post Offices Department of Posts Osmanabad Division Osmanabad 413 501
3. The Appellate Authority Department of Posts O/o Post Master General Aurangabad Region Aurangabad 431 002
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC