Central Information Commission
Swapan Kumar Barman vs Department Of Expenditure on 4 January, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOEXP/A/2020/111381
Swapan Kumar Barman ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Expenditure,
O/o the Chief Adviser Cost, RTI
Cell, 2nd Floor, C Wing, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi - 110003.
CPIO
PAO (Expenditure), RTI Cell,
Room No. 235A, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 03/01/2022
Date of Decision : 03/01/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28/09/2019
CPIO replied on : 21/10/2019
First appeal filed on : 11/11/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 18/11/2019
1
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07/01/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.09.2019 seeking the following information;
i) I have retired on 31/03/2016 as Director (Cost) in the Scale of Rs.37400-
67000/-, G.P.Rs.10,000/- from the Office of Chief Adviser Cost. My Last Pay Drawn was Rs.63, 440/-. My PPO No.1595 4160 0072, Bank A/c No.3222 1010 06772, Canara Bank, Tamluk Branch. As per CCS (Pension) Rules1972 my basic pension was fixed atRs.31, 720/- out of which I commuted Rs.12688/- as per rule. Accordingly I have drawn Pension amount Rs.58, 682/- w.e.f.01/04/2016 to 31/01/2017. Subsequently my pay has been revised as per 7th Pay Commission. Basic Pension has been fixed at Rs.83, 600/- and commuted Rs.33,440/- as per rule. During Feb.2017 I have drawn Pension only Rs.51, 832/-which was short of Rs.6850/- than the original pension of Rs.58682/- drawn on April 2016 i.e. After revision of pension as per 7th Pay Commission the quantum of Pension per month has been reduced to Rs.51, 832/- in place of Rs.58682/-(Original Pension) where as Cost of living has been Increased manifold. But as per Rule 8, CCS (Pension) Rules1972 stoppage or reduction of Pension for reasons other than misconduct not permissible. Kindly show me the reasons why the existing Pension of Rs.58682/-for the month of April 2016 has been reduced to Rs.51, 832/- for the month of Feb.2017 & onwards?
ii) Why Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 has not been followed in this case?
The CPIO/ Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Lok Nayak Bhawan , Khan Market, New Delhi replied to the appellant on 21.10.2019 stating that:-
"............this Office have not issued any instructions/communication for reduction of your pension and hence do not have any information with regard to reduction of your pension by your bank."
The CPIO/ Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi informed the appellant on 07.11.2019 that;
"E.V Branch of this Department has no information to furnish in this regard. However a copy of the RTI application is being transferred to Central Pension Accounting Office, which is nodal office disbursing pension to Central Government employees, for providing information, if any, to you directly."2
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.11.2019.
The CPIO Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi replied to the appellant on 18.11.2019 stating as follows:-
".........pension has been authorized vide SSA dated 26.04.2017 as basic pension Rs. 83, 600/- and revised reduced pension Rs. 50, 160/- and your getting the same as per e-scroll. Further CPAO authorizes the pension on the basis of special seal authority received from the concerned Pay and Accounts Office and after authorization Band pay the pension on the basis of SSA.
Hence, your application is being forwarded to PAO, Expenditure, New Delhi for providing the information under section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 for taking necessary action."
In regard to his first appeal, FAA's order dated 18.11.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO's letter dated 21.10.2019 and provided the details of sanctioned pension and commutation.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent No.1: Harsh Joshi, Assistant Director & CPIO present through intra- video conference.
Respondent No.2: Vinod Kumar, AAO & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
Respondent No.1 submitted that their office has not issued any order for reduction of the Appellant's pension and further read out a detailed submission prepared by him explaining the fixation of the Appellant's pension. He further stated that the basic pension of the Appellant has increased from Rs. 19,032 to Rs. 50,160 and the fixation of the amount of the dearness relief to be paid on such monthly basic pension is beyond the scope of the Chief Advisor Cost.3
Respondent No.2 submitted that through the channel of the RTI Act, the Appellant is merely seeking to redress his grievance and submitted further that the appellant had retired from service on 31.03.2016 and his pension case was processed by their office by 12.04.2016. His pension case was therefore processed as 6th CPC case. That, at the time of processing, his basic pension was Rs. 31720/- and after revision of pension according to 7th CPC, it was fixed at Rs. 83600/- which is correct as per rules. He furthermore submitted that the pension of the Appellant has been fixed at higher side and therefore Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 has not been violated at all, while the pensioner is pressing on net pension without factoring in commuted pension. Difference of commuted pension works out to Rs. 20752/-, differential commutation value amounting to Rs. 20,40503/- which has been paid to appellant by bank as per authority issued.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the Appellant has not sought for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as he has merely sought for clarifications and justification for the fixation of his pension, yet the CPIOs have attempted to clarify his concerns. The written submissions of Respondent No.2 and the detailed case brief submitted by Respondent No.1 adequately supplement the earlier replies. Now, although, a copy of the written submission dated 31.12.2021 of Respondent No.2 has been endorsed to the Appellant, the Commission finds that the detailed case brief submitted by Respondent No.1 during the hearing has not been informed to the Appellant.
In view of the foregoing, to facilitate the Appellant, the Commission directs Respondent No.1 to send a copy of the detailed case brief to the Appellant explaining the pension fixation and status of the increased pension. The said information shall be sent to the Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order by Respondent No.1 under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5