Central Information Commission
Sanjay Kumar Singh vs Controller General Of Defence Accounts ... on 9 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CGDAC/A/2023/625237 and CIC/IAIRF/A/2023/123813.
Sanjay Kumar Singh .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the JCDA, Air Force,
Subrato Park, New Delhi-110010. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.08.2024
Date of Decision : 08.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision as
these are based on same RTI application of the Appellant.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.01.2023
CPIO replied on : 01.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 21.03.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.05.2023 & 29.05.2023
CIC/CGDAC/A/2023/625237
CIC/IAIRF/A/2023/123813
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.01.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 5
Sir, Please refer my CPGRAMS grievances ref No DOPPW/E/2022/34218 and subsequent appeal vide ref No FADSS/E/A/22/000915 in connection with payment of less pension to me. As my Grievances and Appeal has been disposed off without any appropriate action/reply, l prefer to file an application under RTI Act to obtain appropriate reply/information in this regard before going for judicial remedies. In this regard I humbly request to concerned authorities to provide me undermentioned documents/ information pointwise under the said Act.
1. I 766036-L Ex Sgt Sanjay Kumar Singh, am a defence pensioner with effect from 30.09.2010 with Basic pension of Rs 8955 corresponding to original Basic pay of Rs.11470 Grade Pay Rs.2800 MSP Rs. 2000 Classification pay Rs. 240 and Group Pay Rs. 1400. vide original PPO No 08/14/12914/2011. I want to know whether I am eligible for one rank one pension with effect from 01.07.2014 notified vide GOI MOD Letter No 12(1)2014/D(Pen/Policy) Part-II dated 07.11.2015.
2. If no, kindly provide me the relevant clause of the above notification under which I am not eligible for the OROP benefit.
3. If yes, then provide me amount of pension fitted w.e.f. 01/07/2014 as per OROP-1 fitment/concordance table. Kindly also provide me relevant OROP-1 fitment table applicable for Group-X Sgt Diploma Holder.
4. My Basic pension corresponding to pension of point no 3 (pension after ORO-1) w.e.f. 01.01.2016 consequent to revision under 7th CPC. Kindly also provide relevant and applicable fitment/concordance table.
5. My basic pension fitted after ORP -II revision corresponding to basic of point no 4 i.e. after 7th CPC.
6. Kindly provide corrigendum PPO corresponding to basic pension of point no 3 i.e. after ORP-1 point 4 i.e. after 7th CPC revision and point no 5 i.e. after ORO-2 revision, so that arrear if any can be calculated.
7. If the above information is not available with you your office, kindly forward my application to concerned office/department as per the provision of RTI Act.
8. Further, if extra fee is required to be paid by me for above information, Kindly provide me Account details (No, Name and IFSC) so that fee can be Page 2 of 5 remitted immediately digitally. With kind regards,. Sanjay Kumar Singh.
Mob No xxxxxxxxxxx"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 01.03.2023 stating as under:
With reference to the RTI application, it is intimated that RTI Act doesn't cast any obligation on part of the CPIO to reply to the queries that are interrogatory in nature as the same is not defined as information under section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. However you are advised to go through circular 555 and 666 of PCDA(P) Prayag raj.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.03.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Md. Chaudhary Iftekhar Adil present through video- conference.
Respondent: Mr. Sangram Singh, Sr. Accounts Officer-cum-PIO present in person.
Appellant's representative pleaded that complete/ satisfactory information has not been provided by the Respondent till date. He further stated that Appellant was unhappy with the fact that he was getting lesser pension of Rs 1,000/- against the entitled amount, reasons of which has not been intimated to him till date. He urged the Commission to look into the matter.
Respondent submitted that attention of the Appellant was invited to circular 555 and 666 of PCDA(P) Prayagraj which is already in public domain and clarifies the doubt of Appellant. He further clarified that pension of Appellant was revised as per OROP on 24.01.2016 to an amount of Rs. 24,320/- p.m. and further revision w.e.f. 01.07.2019 should lead to payment of Rs. 24,393/-p. m.
Later, the above-mentioned circulars were issued. Further, pension revision as per OROP is done by Pension Disbursing Agency (PDA) where Respondent has no role to play.
Page 3 of 5Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that as far as RTI Application is concerned appropriate response has been provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 01.03.2023 as the provisions of the RTI Act.
It also appears during the hearing that the Appellant is embracing his grievance regarding lesser pension received by him which cannot be resolved under the mandate of the RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
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 has held as under:
"6. ....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."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a Page 4 of 5 dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
(Emphasis Supplied) In view of the above, no relief can be ordered in these matters.
The appeals are 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 Copy To:
The FAA, PCDA AF, WEST BLOCK, RK PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)