Central Information Commission
Nityananda Das vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 30 June, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क यसुचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगनाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File Nos. (As per annexure enclosed)
In the matter of:
Nityananda Das
... Appellant
VS
1.US (Pers. IV) & CPIO
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
Opp. Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001
Senior Finance and Accounts Officer and CPIO,
ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI),
Izatnagar- 243122, U.P.
...Respondents
Date of hearing : 29.06.2020
Date of Decision : 29.06.2020
File RTI CPIO First Appeal FAA's Second Appeal
Nos. application replied on filed on Order on
filed on
1.658245 04/10/2019 21/10/2019 22/10/2019 14/11/2019 28/11/2019
2.600445 26/09/2019 15/11/2019 19/11/2019 06/12/2019 05/01/2020
3.656441 29/06/2019 03/09/2019 11/08/2019 Not on Record 08/11/2019
4.656837 04/07/2019 Not on 12/08/2019 Not on Record 13/11/2019
Record
5.657701 07/07/2019 30/09/2019 02/10/2019 23/10/2019 22/11/2019
6.658049 18/07/2019 01/10/2019 23/08/2019 Not on Record 26/11/2019
7.658422 24/07/2019 30/09/2019 28/08/2019 23/10/2019 30/11/2019
&
03/10/2019
8.600799 01/10/2019 07/01/2020 01/11/2019 Not on Record 07/01/2020
1
The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone
Respondent: Shri S S Rawat, AAO(Pension) & PIO, Shri Sandeep Bishnoi, Under Secretary (Cash Section) and CPIO, Shri Pramod Kumar, the CPIO, all heard over phone Information Sought:
In file no. (1) CIC/IVTRI/A/2019/658245 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Certified copy of IGFRI's letter No. PF. 78/ND/PS/07-Adm.(Pen.) dated 21/08/2019 which was received by the FAO, IVRI, Izatnagar.
2. Provide the reference number(s) of all the relevant instruction(s), Order(s) etc. which are used by the Pension Authorization Unit, IVRI while examining the IGFRI's letter No. PF. 78/ND/PS/07-Adm.(Pen.) dated 21/08/2019.
3. Details of action taken by the Pension Authorization Unit, IVRI for authorization of revised pension & retirement benefits to the appellant in accordance with the IGFRI's letter No. PF. 78/ND/PS/07-Adm.(Pen.) dated 21/08/2019.
4. And other related information.
In file no. (2) CIC/IVTRI/A/2020/600445 The appellant has sought the information with reference to therevised Guidelines of Planning Commission (SJ&E Division) having letter No.M- 11012/03/2013-SJ&SW, for Implementation of Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) by the States/UTs. As per his second appeal he is not satisfied with the reply CPIO on points 3,5,6 and 8 of the RTI application. The said points are given below:
3. Certified copies of the approvals that were received from the concerned Nodal Department /Agency of the respective State Government for utilization of TSP fund received by IVRI during the year 2018-19.
5. The reference number of Office Order/Rule/Regulations/Instruction etc. that was used by the IVRI authority while utilizing the TSP fund that was received by the IVRI, Izatnagar during the financial year 2018-19.
6. Certified copy of the complete file noting where the approval had been given by both the Nodal Officer (S), TSP Program, IVRI and Director, IVRI for utilizing the TSP fund received at IVRI during the financial year 2018-19.
8. The manner of execution of TSP program at IVRI, Izatnagar during the financial year 2018-19, (ii) including the amounts allocated.2
In file no.(3) CIC/ICARH/A/2019/656441 In the Minutes of Senior Management Group Meeting held on 2nd April 2019, it is stated at Point No. 11 that Director (P) and Director (F) have been asked to examine the circular regarding admissibility of NPA, received from Ministry of Finance (MoF) and put up the same to the competent authority for decision making. In this regard the appellant has sought the following information:
1. The date when the Director (P) and Director (F), ICAR Headquarter started examining the circular received from MoF regarding admissibility of NPA.
2. The date when the Director (P) and Director (F), ICAR Headquarter completed examination of the circular regarding admissibility of NPA.
3. The date when the Director (P) and Director (F), ICAR Headquarter submitted their examination report/recommendation to the competent authority, ICAR for decision taking.
4. Certified copy of the decision taken by the competent authority, ICAR on the admissibility of NPA received from MoF.
5. And various other information/documents In file no.(4) CIC/ICARH/A/2019/656837 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide reference number(s) of all relevant ICAR orders/circulars guidelines etc. which were forwarded to the IGFRI Authority and other ICAR institutes in respect of revision of the pension (following the recommendations of 7th CPC) of the retired Scientists other than veterinary scientists drawing Non Practicing Allowance (NPA).
2. Provide reference number(s) of all relevant ICAR orders/circulars guidelines etc. which were forwarded to the IGFRI Authority and other ICAR institutes in respect of revision of the pension (following the recommendations of 7th CPC) of the retired veterinary scientists drawing Non Practicing Allowance (NPA).
3. Certified copies of complete files noting in respect of revision of the pension (following the recommendations of 7th CPC) of all the ICAR scientists who retired on or after 01/01/2016.
4. And various other information/documents.3
In file no.(5) CIC/ICARH/A/2019/657701 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Designation of the officer at ICAR Headquarter, New Delhi who authorizes payment of both (i) Dearness Allowance and (ii) Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) at increased rates w.e.f. 01/07/2017 as per recommendation of 7th CPC to the scientists posted at both the (i) ICAR Headquarter, New Delhi and (ii) the research institutions under ICAR.
2. Rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by the Public Authority or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions related to payment of both the (i) Dearness Allowance and (ii) Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) at increased rates w.e.f. 01/07/2017 as per recommendation of 7th CPC to the scientists posted at both the (i) ICAR Headquarter, New Delhi and (ii) the research institutions under ICAR.
3. And various other information.
In file no.(6) CIC/ICARH/A/2019/658049 The appellant in his second appeal has stated that CPIO has not provided information /documents in respect of point 4 of his RTI application, which is mentioned below:
4. Certified copies of all documents which were used / consulted while issuing the letter F. No. 1(4)/2017-Per.IV dated 27.03.2018 regarding revision of pay of scientists of ICAR In file no.(7) CIC/ICARH/A/2019/658422 The appellant has sought the following information/documents:
1. Intimate the specific Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 or the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, which are applicable for the ICAR scientists w.e.f. 01/01/2016.
2. Rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by the ICAR or used by its employees for discharging its functions viz. revision of pay scale of the ICAR veterinary scientists (who are drawing Non-practicing Allowance in the 6th CPC) following revision of pay scale of Central Government Employees on recommendation of 7th CPC.4
In file no. (8)CIC/ICARH/A/2020/600799 The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Certified copies of all the relevant instruction(s), order(s), note(s) etc. (issued by Govt. of India/ ICAR, New Delhi from time to time) wherein it is stated that Pension Authorization Units under ICAR system can revise the pension (as per recommendation of 7th CPC) of the ICAR veterinary scientists (who are already drawing Non- Practicing Allowance under the 6th CPC) without considering the Non- Practicing Allowance (NPA) as part of their pay.
2. Certified copies of all relevant instruction(s), order(s), note(s) etc. (issued by Govt. of India/ ICAR, New Delhi), which were forwarded/ endorsed to all Pension Authorization Units under ICAR system for revision of pension (as per recommendation of 7th CPC) of the veterinary scientists who retired from the service on or after 01/01/2016 and were drawing Non- Practicing Allowance as on 31/12/2015 as per 6th CPC.
Ground for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted rejoinders in respect of all his above-mentioned appeal cases and reiterated the same during hearing while summarizing his cases broadly on 4 issues i.e. 1. The URL of the website was not given by the CPIO due to which he was not able to locate the information desired by him. 2. The issue of NPA was not resolved despite the same being paid to other scientists. The reply given by the CPIO states that the matter is under process and he is aggrieved as no final reply was given. 3. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, the information is to be given in the form it is sought by the applicant and not otherwise and in all his cases, the same was not followed by the concerned CPIOs. 4. The inspection offered was also contested due to the fact that barely 10 to 15 pages were to be given and considering his age and the distance he had to travel, the CPIO should not have asked for inspection as it was merely a plot to deny the information.
In addition to the above submissions, the appellant in respect of file no. 658245 submitted that the CPIO had denied the information sought on the plea that IGFRI letter no.No. PF. 78/ND/PS/07-Adm.(Pen.) dated 21/08/2019 5 was not received by the FAO, IVRI, Izatnagar. He pressed for affirmation in the form of an affidavit from the CPIO that no such information is available with them. The Commission finds no material on record which proves that the letter dated 21.08.2019 was received by the respondent and hence could not accept the plea of the appellant.
In respect of file no. 600445 he contested the replies in respect of points no. 3,5,6 and 8 of the RTI application. He submitted that in respect of points no. 3 & 5 of the RTI application, the CPIO has provided misguided information. In respect of point no. 6 he contested that for providing 10 to 15 pages he was being called for inspection that too without considering the fact that he is a senior citizen and has to travel more than 300 km. In respect of point no. 8 of the RTI application he submitted that the manner of execution of TSP programs in the tribal areas was not given. It was noted that the issue of inspection was already dealt with in the 37 complaint cases heard together of the same applicant during today's hearing. As far as the replies in respect of points 3,5 and 8 of the RTI application is concerned, the same was provided as per the availability of records.
In respect of file no. 656441 he submitted that both the CPIO and the FAA did not provide him information in respect of points no. 1 to 6 of the RTI application. He further submitted that his RTI queries are related to examination of the circular regarding admissibility of NPA received from MoF. The reply dated 03.09.2019 was perused and it was found that the applicant was informed that the matter is under process. On a query by the Commission, the concerned CPIO submitted that the issue is pending consideration before a High level Committee and is still under process. The matter has reached its conclusive end and whenever finality will be attained with regard to the issue of NPA, the same will be broadly publicized for the knowledge of general public.
In respect of file no. 656837 he contested the reply in respect of points no. 1,3,4 and 5 of the RTI application. He submitted that he could not locate the information sought in respect of point no.1 of the RTI application on the website. Regarding the reply to point no. 3, he submitted that Sec 7(9) is not an exemption clause like Sec 8 and 9 of the RTI application. In respect of point no. 4 of the RTI application he submitted that no information was given to him.
6In respect of point no. 5 he contested the reply of the CPIO in which the CPIO referred to suo moto disclosure of the information on their website. The CPIO submitted a copy of the reply dated 30.09.2019 which was given online and the Commission after perusal of the same found it to be in consonance with the RTI Act.
In respect of file no. 657701 he submitted that the CPIO had provided a reply on 30.09.2019 i.e. after a delay of approx 80 days from the date of filing of the RTI application. He further submitted that he could not locate the information in the given link and hence the copies should be given. The reply was proper and when suo moto disclosure was made, the CPIO cannot be harassed by the applicant by making such remarks. It is relevant to mention here that he had not provided any material proof to substantiate that information sought is not available on the website.
In respect of file no. 658049 he contested the reply in respect of point no. 4 of the RTI application. He submitted that the CPIO had replied on 01.10.2019 i.e. after approx 70 days of filing of the RTI application. He further pointed out that documents in respect of point no. 4 were not given. However, the reply shows that information sought was already given on 29.08.2018 and no further action is required.
In respect of file no. 658422 he contested the replies in respect of points no.1 and 2 of the RTI application. In respect of point no. 1 he contested the denial of the information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. In respect of point no. 2 he challenged the reply of the CPIO in which the CPIO had referred to suo moto disclosure of the information sought on the website. He pointed out that he could not locate the information sought. The Commission on perusal of the reply dated 30.09.2019 found no infirmity in the CPIO's reply.
In respect of file no. 600799he contested the replies in respect of points no.1 & 2 of the RTI application and submitted that the information sought is related to revision of pension of retired veterinary scientists without considering the benefits of NPA. It was noted that a reply was given on 07.01.2020 in which it was informed that the issue related to Non-Practicing Allowance is under consideration in the council and the decision in the matter shall be communicated to all concerned in due course. On a further query the 7 concerned CPIO submitted that till date only 7 scientists were given NPA benefit and after the Ministry of Finance order in 2017, no one was granted NPA thereafter. He further submitted that for instance the VC of IVRI is going to retire and his pension also has been calculated without giving the benefit of NPA. He also clarified that back in the year 1975 there was no concept of NPA and hence the service conditions never included NPA. It came into picture in the year 1990 after the issue was raised and advocated by many employees and was applied with certain riders.
On a query regarding delay in replying to the RTI applications in certain cases, the CPIO submitted that the same issue came up so many times and it was seen that once a reply is given another RTI is generated from those replies, and the same created pressure on the CPIO also and hence they could not provide a timely reply.
Observations:
Taking into consideration that all the above mentioned cases were filed u/s 19 of the RTI Act and are in the form of second appeals, the contention of the applicant in each of the cases were perused and examined in the light of the reply of the respondent.
It was noted that timely replies were not given in few cases, but the same was not deliberate on the part of the CPIO as explained by the concerned CPIO, Shri Pramod Kumar during the hearing that due to multiple RTI applications filed by the appellant around the same time, some of the replies got delayed as they were busy in providing replies to other similar RTI applications filed by the same appellant. He further submitted that based on the replies given in connection with some other RTI application, the appellant has filed many more and the process has never stopped and this factor also added to the delay in giving a prompt reply. He, however tendered his apology for the delay in replying to the RTI applications of the appellant. The Commissions accepts the apology of the CPIO, however, he is cautioned to be careful regarding the timelines prescribed under the Act as time is the essence of the RTI Act.
After thoroughly going through each of the cases, the bench is constrained to state that the present cases are revolving around one or two limited and similar issues. It appears that the appellant is aggrieved with the pay fixation 8 of Scientists relating to drawing NPA, revision of the pension given to him after the implementation of the 7th CPC, delay in the payment of gratuity amount and through all his above listed RTI applications, he is trying to redress his grievance in the garb of seeking information under the RTI Act through these multiple appeals which are often overlapping with each other. The Commission finds no malafide intent on the part of the CPIO as it can be seen that in almost all the cases, replies have been given by the CPIO and considering the fact that the appellant had filed multiple numbers of RTI applications and in each of his applications, voluminous information was being sought. The Commission is constrained to state that the appellant has resorted to filing of repeated RTI applications which have generated from one or two issues, and therefore the Commission finds no scope to further intervene in these matters.
The appellant has misconceived the role of the Central Information Commission and it is apparent from his submissions in each and every case that he is trying to create a fear among the CPIOs and the FAAs by pressing for penalty against them. The CIC is an adjudicating body to give relief only in such cases where it is found that the relevant information is not provided to the applicant. However, in the present cases, the CPIO and the FAA cannot be expected to satisfy the appellant, when the appellant is not in search of information but only settling his service grievances against the department by filing multiple , vexatious, repetitive RTI applications followed by appeals and complaints. All the appeals are inter-related in some manner or the other and are clearly indicative of absolute misuse of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Among many other submissions, the appellant through his written submissions has brought it to the notice of the Commission that in many of his RTI applications, the CPIO has unilaterally asked him to inspect the relevant documents which was not a proper approach of the CPIO as under the provisions of the RTI Act, all material shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the CPIO, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that travelling of more than 300 km by train or bus by a senior citizen like him who is 65 years old to fetch information consisting of 10 to 15 pages is the most effective method of 9 communication and easily accessible and economic way of providing information. He has further submitted that the condition of inspection was nothing but a ploy/alibi to deny information as this condition was imposed unilaterally on him by both the CPIO & the FAA, without considering that such inspection may cause detriment and mental agony to him. The Commission concurs with the submissions of the appellant that if at all any opportunity of inspection is to be given, both the parties should mutually agree and take into consideration all other factors like the feasibility, cost effectiveness, age factor of the applicant etc. However, the Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant has not filed only one RTI application, but more than 45 RTI applications within the same time period and for the sake of argument, even if the submissions of the appellant are accepted that it was not reasonable or feasible for him to travel 300 kms for getting 10 to 15 pages of information, however those 10 to 15 pages were confined to one RTI application which were to be collated and collected from many files dealing with the subject matter and when the same situation is applied to 45 of his RTI applications, the information undoubtedly becomes voluminous. Further, the nature of the information sought by the appellant was revolving around one or two limited issues but he has sought each and every information about the revision of his pension consequent upon the implementation of the 7th CPC, and other related issues. Under such circumstances, the best possible way to address the issue of the appellant was to give him an opportunity to inspect all the relevant records available with the respondent organisation, so that the appellant may himself see what all information is required by him.
Here it is pertinent to draw reference of the appellant to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Prakash Manubhai Patel vs. Chief Information Commissioner, Special Civil Application No. 16480 of 2014 dated 14.09.2014 wherein reliance was placed on observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009. The relevant para is extracted below:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the 10 efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
In view if the above mentioned judicial dicta, the Commission does not find any flaw in the replies of the CPIO offering the appellant an opportunity to inspect the relevant records.
Having said so, the Commission opines that the appellant is only exhausting the resources of the public authority as well as the Commission. Instead he should approach the appropriate forum of law or the competent Court for redressal of his service grievances. Therefore, the Commission finds no merit in the appeals listed above.
Decision:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of the relevant case records including the rejoinders filed by the applicant, it is noted that on the one hand, the appellant is aggrieved that the requisite information was not provided to him on many points of his RTI applications and where provided the same was delayed, however, on the other hand, what is apparent is that the appellant has undoubtedly filed multiple RTI applications with the same organisation which more or less cover the similar issue/issues. Even if the applicant has a justified grievance, the fact remains that the manner adopted by him shows otherwise. All this exercise on the part of the complainant i.e. filing more than 45 RTI applications within a period of 06 months, not inspecting the documents when an opportunity was given to him, etc, negates the very purpose of the RTI Act. In other words, even if the appellant was 11 having a reasonable cause in filing these RTI applications according to him, the fact remains that the means adopted by the applicant speaks volumes of his ignorance of the spirit of the RTI Act. As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI applicants to not transgress the spirit of the RTI Act by clogging the functioning of public authorities with such repetitive, cumbersome and implausible RTI applications. In case any such repeated/similar second appeals or complaints are filed before the Commission, the same shall be dismissed in limine without any hearing or any further reference to the complainant/appellant. The CPIO is also advised to deal with any future RTI Applications of the applicant on the same subject matter or any related service grievances emanating from this subject in accordance with the aforesaid observations of the Commission.
The appellant is also advised that since the NPA matter is even presently pending with a High Level Committee, filing multiple applications would not help in quick disposal of his grievance. Hence, he should approach the concerned administrative authorities for expediting the issue and refrain from filing any more such RTI applications on the same or similar subject matter.
With the above observations, the appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna(वनजाएन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णतस या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 12 "Annexure"
Sl No. File No.
1. CIC/IVTRI/A/2019/658245
2. CIC/IVTRI/A/2020/600445
3. CIC/ICARH/A/2019/656441
4. CIC/ICARH/A/2019/656837
5. CIC/ICARH/A/2019/657701
6. CIC/ICARH/A/2019/658049
7. CIC/ICARH/A/2019/658422
8. CIC/ICARH/A/2020/600799
13