Central Information Commission
Mrajeet Kumar vs Cbdt on 16 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/CC/A/2014/002293/BS/10342
16 May 2016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ajeet Kumar,
R/o - 194, New Arya Nagar,
Patel Marg, Ghaziabad - 201001.
UP.
Respondent : CPIO / ITO - (HQ Personnel)
Department of Income Tax,
O/o the ITO - (HQ Personnel),
Room No - 375 - A, C.R. Building,
New Delhi
ITO (HQRS-PERSONNEL),
Income Tax Department
RTI, ROOM NO.375A,
CENTRAL REVENUES BUILDING,
I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110 002
RTI application filed on : 09/05/2014
PIO replied on : 16/6/2014 & 18/07/2014
First appeal filed on : 09/07/2014
First Appellate Authority order : 11/08/2014
Second Appeal dated : 10/11/2014
Information sought:
1. Whether the appellant is being considered as a physically handicapped candidate for the purpose of promotion?
2. The appellant had provided the department with his certificate of being physically handicapped well in advance and had demanded promotion from retrospective effect. It may be kindly clarified as to why he was promoted as Tax Assistant at a later date i.e. 28/04/2008 and not given promotion with retrospective effect as demanded in his application forwarded by CIT, Delhi-XI, New Delhi on 26/12/2013 to your good office?
3. Why he was not considered for promotion as Tax Assistant in March 2006 when a huge lot of promotions were carried out in the cadre of Tax Assistant?
4. The appellant have been categorically targeted/victimized by some vested interest in the department. He may be provided with copies of note-sheets as well as relevant papers of correspondence side of the file of promotion to the cadre of Tax Assistant in March 2006 when he was not considered for promotion as Tax Assistant and also relevant papers of correspondence side of the file of promotion to the cadre of Tax Assistant on 28/04/2008.
Intimate about the fees regarding obtaining certified photocopies of the above relevant documents.
Page 1 of 25. If the appellant would have been considered for promotion as Tax Assistant in March 2006, he would have been considered for promotion of Sr. Tax Assistant in 2009 as he has passed the departmental exam for Ministerial Staff in 2009. It may kindly be clarified that can he be considered for promotion as Sr. Tax Assistant with retrospective effect from 2009 after being given the benefit of promotion as Tax Assistant with retrospective effect from 2006 atleast?
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. R N Singh Advocate CPIO's representative The CPIO's representative stated that the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application dated 09/05/2014 was furnished vide letter dated 16/06/2014. He informed that the appellant has a grievance regarding his promotion but service related disputes cannot be resolved under the RTI Act. He added that the appellant is free to inspect the relevant records and take whatever information/documents he needs.
Decision notice:
At the outset it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act.
From the CPIO's representative's submissions it appears that the information has been provided. If, however, the appellant has any doubt in the matter the CPIO should permit him to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI application dated 09/05/2014 and also allow him to take photocopies/extracts therefrom, free of cost, upto 10 pages within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2