Central Information Commission
Manish Raj vs Department Of Expenditure on 8 June, 2023
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/2022/609609
Manish Raj ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance, RTI Cell,
North Block, New Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02/02/2023
Date of Decision : 30/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 02/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 02/12/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 06/12/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15/02/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.11.2021 seeking the following information:
1. "Any information or copy suggesting process for clubbing gazetted and non-
gazetted group B (4600) employee (as feeder cadre) for promotion to JTS Group A service together.
12. Information or copy of document suggesting or negating the fixing of ratio of employee between gazetted and non-gazetted group B (4600) post (as feeder cadre) for promotion to JTS Group A service together.
3. A copy of document suggesting gazetted group B (4600) being senior to non-gazetted group B officer.
4. A copy of DoPT rules/notification suggesting process for promotion when gazetted and non-gazetted group B post are considered as feeder cadre for JTS Group A Service.
5. Any information or copy of document suggesting Group B gazetted Officer in Pay Grade of 4600 eligible to take reimbursement of newspaper bill as per DoPT OM.
6. Whether a Group B Gazetted Officer (4600) is equivalent to section officer for the purpose of reimbursement of newspaper bill as per DoE, Ministry of Finance OM No. 25(12)/E.Coord-2018 dated 03.04.2018.
7. A copy of document suggesting that clubbing of gazetted and non-gazetted group B (4600) employee (as feeder cadre) for promotion to JTS Group A Service together is against DoPT circulars and instructions."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 02.12.2021 stating as under:
"With regard to the information sought by you in your application, it is stated that only points 5 and 6 of your RTI application pertain to E.Coord Branch, Department of Expenditure. In this regard, it is informed that DoE OM No. 25(12)/E.Coord/2018 dated 03.04.2018 regarding newspaper reimbursements referred in your application is the only information available in material form in this branch. Further, as per point 10 of Part-I of Guide on RTI Act, 2005 issued vide DoPT's OM No.1/32/2013-IR dared 28th November,2013, CPIO is not supposed to intercept/create the information and to solve the problems raised by the applicants. Therefore, this Branch has "NIL" information, under Section 2 (f) read with 2 (i) of RTI Act-2005, in material form to furnish."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.12.2021. FAA's order dated 06.12.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
2"2. To direct the respondents to provide the information whether Gazetted Group B officer is 'equivalent' to Section officer and others under for the purpose of reimbursement of newspaper bill of Rs. 500/-(per month) as per DoE's OM dated 03.04.2018;
3. To direct the respondents to issue a list of officers 'equivalent' to Section officer and others mentioned as Point No. 04 in DoE's OM dated 03.04.2018;
4. To direct the respondents to issue a clarification w.r.t officers `equivalent' to other officers for the reimbursement of newspaper bill as per DoE's OM dated 03.04.2018;
5. To direct the respondents to apply their mind carefully on the materials on record while responding to any matter pertaining to RTI;
6. To issue any other direction or recommendation as it may please and deems appropriate."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: L H Harangchal, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant narrated at length the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application as stated in the text of his Second Appeal as under:
"2. That, the appellant is a Central Government Employee and posted in Group-B, Gazetted Post in Pay Scale 9300-34800, GP1600/-l as per 6th CPC] i.e. Level-7,Index-53600/- as per 7th CPC.
3. That, the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance vide its OM No. 25(12)/E.Coord/2018 dated 03.04.2018 issued guidelines w.r.t "reimbursement in respect of Newspaper purchased/supplied to officers at their residence", wherein it has been stated that officers on production of bills are entitled to reimbursement for the newspaper biII. The officers for the aforesaid purpose are categorized in four Levels, as under:3
4. That, the term 'equivalent' is used wrt to equally situated officers as mentioned in the list. At point No. 04, Section officer or equivalent are entitled to get newspaper reimbursement Rs. 500/- per month. In various Ministries/department of the Government of India, the post of Section officer is placed in Rs. 4600/- GP as Group B Gazetted Post. Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Department of Higher Education to fill its vacancies of Section Officer in PB-2, GP Rs. 4600/- issued an advertisement No. 7-8/2013-MC dated 27.02.2014.
5. Similarly, Indian Council of Medical and Research (ICMR) to administer its administrative cadre made ICMR Administrative Cadre (Group A, B and C) Recruitment Rules, 2017 where the post of Section Officer is placed in PB-2, GP Rs. 4600/-.
6. That, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, being a final authority in terms of deciding revenue and finance matters zo.r.t Central Government employees, issued such OM dated 03.04.2018 and respectively complied by every department and Ministry of the Government of India.
7. That, in compliance of OM dated 03.04.2018, various departments and Ministry of the Govt of India provided the reimbursement of Rs. 500/- (per month) of Newspaper bill to Group-B, "Gazetted Post" in Pay Scale 9300-34800, GP-
4600/,considering to be 'equivalent' with Section officer as mentioned in the OM dated 03.04.2018.
8. That, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts vide it F. No. 34- 01/2018-PAP dated 28.03.2019 in compliance with Department of Expenditure OM dated 03.04.2018 issued an order for the reimbursement of Newspaper bill and at Point No. 04 (v) made it applicable to "gazetted Group 'B'" officer for the payment of Rs. 500/-(per month).
9. That, similarly, Ministry of Defence, Defence Accounts Department (DAD) under Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) vide its Order No. AN/ 4 XIV/14162/Newspaper/I dated 24.08.2018 at Point No. 6 made provision for the payment of Rs. 500/- (per month) to all Group Gazetted in DAD. It clearly depicts the violation of right to equality under Constitution of India and in-consistent approach of the Respondents while giving effect to the OM dated 03.04.2018, where many Gazetted Group B officers belonging to various other Ministries/department still fighting for the justice.
10. That, the respondents being the issuer of an OM dated 03.04.2018 for the reimbursement of newspaper bill only can provide the information regarding the entitlement of Gazetted Group B officer being "equivalent" to Section Officer to get a reimbursement of Rs. 500/-(per month).
12. That, the respondent being the issuer of OM dated 03.04.2018 is duty bound to provide information. Also, by providing such information the respondent is neither creating or re-producing any information, instead providing the missing information in the OM dated 03.04.2018 and the same is covered under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2015. The appellate authority is mistaken in holding that the OM dated 03.04.2018 is self-explanatory, whereas the said OM dated 03.04.2018 is left at the whims and fancies of the various department to decide whether or not to include Gazetted Group B officers in the list or not.
13. That, the respondents by providing information of whether Gazetted Group B officer is equivalent to Section officer and others for the purpose of reimbursement of newpaper bill of Rs. 500/-(per month) would not only do justice with the appellant but also with many other similarly situated Central Government Employee working as Gazetted Group B officer and refrained by the Government being not-eligible for Newspaper allowance."
The CPIO submitted that as also replied earlier, DoE's OM No.25(12)/E.Coord/2018 dated 03rd Apri1,2018 is the only information available in material form in their Branch. Further, as per DoE's OM No.25(12)/E.Coord/2018 dated 03rd April,2018, the entitlement of Newspaper Reimbursement is given as per the level of Officers/equivalent. The implementation of the said OM rests with respective Ministries/Departments. Hence, the equivalency of posts is to be determined by the Nodal/Administrative Ministry.
In order to facilitate the Appellant further, the Commission asked the CPIO to provide some more insights into the grievance raised by the Appellant, by and large, the CPIO extrapolated on the same argument that it is for the respective Ministries/Departments to implement the terms of the said OM and that DOE is not supposed to issue clarifications on each of the aspects of the OM.
5The Appellant urged that it has taken him a long time to be able to present his case before the Commission and he believes the Commission is in a position to issue necessary directions to the Respondent to ensure uniformity in the implementation of the said OM by all Ministries.
Decision:
At the very outset, it is pertinent to note that the contents of the RTI Application, the issues raised in the Second Appeal by the Appellant or during the hearing, none of it concern the mandate of the RTI Act or the jurisdiction of the CPIO or that of the FAA or the Commission under the RTI Act. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and 6 opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
7"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Notwithstanding the abovesaid, in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act, the CPIO is hereby directed to place this order before their competent authority to look into the concern flagged by the Appellant suggesting lack of clarity or inconsistency in the implementation of the averred OM vis-à-vis equivalency of posts decided by different Ministries/Departments. The competent authority may consider issuing necessary guidelines/clarifications in the public domain by way of facilitating an FAQs Section about the implementation of the terms of the averred OM.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Copy to:
Secretary Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Room No.129-A, North Block New Delhi-110001
--(For information and necessary action) 8