Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sandeep Pahal vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 22 March, 2024

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                 के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                             बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ICARH/A/2023/601372

Shri Sandeep Pahal                                         ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,Indian Council    of   Agricultural   Research      ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
(ICAR) Hqrs.

Date of Hearing                       :    20.03.2024
Date of Decision                      :    20.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner        :    Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :        25.11.2022
PIO replied on                    :        05.12.2022
First Appeal filed on             :        10.12.2022
First Appellate Order on          :        12.12.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :        09.01.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.11.2022 seeking information on following points:-

"Your organization is giving non-practicing allowance or NPA to veterinarians working in your organization either as scientists or technical officers since 1991 and implemented time to time in accordance with past pay commissions without discriminating between the two cadres. However, while implementing the 7th CPC the council issued orders for the implementation of NPA orders for veterinary technical staff excluding veterinary scientists. Kindly take the reference of enclosed Endorsement F.No.TS-19-05-2021-Estt. IV dated 23 September 2021 applicable to grant NPA to ICAR technical employees only. Please provide copies of the note sheets and relevant documents used in support of ordering the release of NPA to ICAR technical officers but not to scientific staff, please. Kindly provide names and designation of all the officials involved in the issue of the above-said and enclosed biased endorsement."

The CPIO &Under Secretary (TS) vide letter dated 05.12.2022 replied as under:-

"Scientific and Technical are two distinct cadre and have different Divisions, officers and CPIOS. As such the issue relating to NPA to Technical personnel's has been taken up by the Technical Division. As far as information regarding scientific Cadre is concerned is to be provided by the CPIO of concerned personnel Division. Accordingly, you are requested to kindly see the information relating to scientific Cadre from CPIO (Per.IV) of ICAR."

Dissatisfied with theresponse received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2022. The FAA vide order dated 12.12.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Anshul Gupta, CPIO and US (Tech Services) The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.

Sjri Anshul Gupta reiterated his written submission dated Nil, the relevant extracts of which are as under. He added that the Appellant has resorted to filing multiple RTI applications on the same issue and that the grievance of the Appellant regarding payment of Non Practising Allowance to Scientific staff stands resolved as on date.:

"Now, the CIC has called for a hearing on the case Filed with No.CIC/ICARH/A/2023/601372through a notice dated 27.02.2024.

The reply of the CPIO in this regard is as under:

1) That the text of the initial RTI qualified the said endorsement as biased.

Providinginformation to the applicant in this context would have meant stamping his opinion thatthe endorsement was indeed biased, which in turn would have meant that the officialsinvolved in the issue of the endorsement were biased as is being indicated by theapplicant. The opinion of the CPIO on the 'officials involved in a biased endorsement'cannot be obtained under Sections 2 (f) and 2 (i) of the RTI Act, 2005 (Annexure 1).

2) The allegation of a Biased Endorsement is incorrect because:

a) Scientific and Technical employees fall under two separate cadres of ICAR, andaccordingly their cases are dealt with in the respective divisions at ICAR HQ, NewDelhi. The process of granting Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) to the eligiblescientific and technical staff is also therefore different.

Hence, the CPIO, TechnicalServices did not have any information pertaining to the granting of NPA to theScientific staff.

b) The applicant filed the 2nd Appeal to the CIC on 09.01.2023, and the order forgranting NPA to Scientific Staff (Veterinary) was issued on 09.02.2023(Annexure- 2). Had the applicant sought information from the Division related toScientific Cadre as directed, there would not have been a need to file this appeal.

3) Since the text of the application was such that the CPIO, TechnicalServices wasrequired to provide the information as the information sought was in respect of thegranting of NPA to the Technical Staff vis-à-vis the scientific staff, the applicant wasinformed to seek the information in respect of NPA to the Scientific staff from thePersonnel Division, ICAR HQ. It is to state here that the CPIO in this case wentoverboard to clear the doubt of the applicant regarding bias, by informing him to seekthe desired information from the CPIO of the Scientific Cadre. Further, the RTI couldnot be transferred in this case as restructuring of the query was required since theapplicant had already given a 'value-judgment'.

4) The CPIO, in this case, has no objection to providing the notings (Annexure 3) andcorrespondence portion (Annexure 4) of the file available with the Technical ServicesDivision related to the RTI, however, the applicant may be advised to be more carefulwhile drafting his query in line with the spirit of the Act."

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.

With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3