Central Information Commission
Murthy vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public ... on 27 March, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/SB/A/2016/000524/MP
Appellant : Shri Murthy, Bangalore
Public Authority : DoPT, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : March 09, 2017
Date of Decision : March 22, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Shri Pushpendra Kumar, US & CPIO - at CIC
RTI application : 28.08.2015
CPIO's reply : 01.10.2015
First appeal : 13.10.2015
FAA's order : 06.01.2016
Second appeal : 08.03.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Murthy, the appellant, sought copy of relevant Rule/O.M. under which the Central Government could exercise pay fixation option in case of appointment to a higher post and higher grade pay when recruited through UPSC; copy of any DoPT O.M./order where there was a provision for increment in the existing grade pay of the Central Government employees who were appointed to a higher post from a lower post; copy of DoPT/GOI O.M./order relating to discrimination between a Central Government and a State Government employee in matters of pay fixation , etc.
2. The CPIO intimated the appellant that the CPIO was bound to furnish only existing and available information to the appellant and could not give any non- existing opinion/advice. The CPIO, however, furnished copies of the relevant extract of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 to the appellant. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the FAA stating that he was not satisfied with the response of the CPIO and requested the FAA to provide the desired information/ documents in a point wise reply. The FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO and informed the appellant that for a grievance arising out of a specific situation, he could approach the administrative authority concerned. Dissatisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission with a request to direct the CPIO to furnish him the relevant rules or material information in a point wise reply to his RTI application.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he wanted the rule under which a Central Government employee can exercise the pay fixation option when appointed from a lower post and lower grade pay to a higher post and higher grade pay carrying higher duties and responsibilities by selection through UPSC. He added that in case of the pay fixation of State Government employees when appointed to a post carrying higher grade pay an increment equal to 3% of the sum of the pay in existing grade is to be given. He wanted to know why there was discrimination in pay fixation in similar cases in Central Government.
4. The respondent stated that they can provide only such information which already existed or was held by them or under their control. The CPIO was not supposed to create information or interpret information or give an opinion which did not exist in any material form. They had advised the appellant to see the provisions of FR 22(1)(a)(i), FR 22(b) and rule 13 of the CCS (Revised Pay Rules), 2008 and had also provided the copies of the relevant extracts. They had also advised the appellant to approach the administrative authority who in turn may seek clarifications from the nodal department.
5. On hearing both the parties, the Commission observes that the respondent authority had provided the available information to the appellant. The appellant may like to approach the appropriate authority for resolution of his grievance. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Deptt of Personnel & Training Deptt of Personnel & Training RTI Cell, North Block RTI Cell, North Block New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110001 Shri Murthy Q. No. J4, Alisda Residential Complex RT Nagar Post Bangalore-560032