Central Information Commission
Anne Matilda B vs Department Of Space on 8 March, 2022
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DSPCE/A/2020/123219
CIC/DSPCE/C/2020/685476
CIC/DSPCE/C/2020/685555
CIC/DSPCE/C/2020/686068
Ms. Anne Matilda B ...
अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Physical Research Laboratory, University ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Area, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
Through: Shri Anand Mehta - CPIO
Date of Hearing : 07.03.2022
Date of Decision : 08.03.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal/compliant:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal /
No. on Compliant
received on
123219 05.08.2019 19.08.2019 21.08.2019 - 18.08.2020
685476 01.07.2020 30.07.2020 31.07.2020 04.09.2020 14.09.2020
685555 02.07.2020 31.07.2020 04.08.2020 04.09.2020 14.09.2020
686068 03.07.2020 01.08.2020 05.08.2020 04.09.2020 18.09.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DSPCE/A/2020/123219 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.08.2019 seeking information on the following points:-
A Selection Committee was Constituted vide Office Memorandum no. PRL:ADMN (III) Advt (02/2019) 2019 dated 05.03.2019 for preparing panel of Office Trainees at PRL.Page 1 of 11
1. Kindly provide copy of the minutes of the meeting/s held by the selection committee as signed by all members as per OM and as approved by Director PRL.
2. Kindly provide details of Section wise Requirement for Office Trainees at PRL and Budgetary allocation for payment of Remuneration to Office Trainees through this Selection Committee.
3. Kindly provide information on the final outcome of the selection committee constituted for the purpose as per OM No.PRL:ADMN (III)Advt (02/2019) 2019 dated 05.03.2019 .
4. Kindly provide the list of Applicants for Office Trainees received by PRL and final selection list as recommended by Selection Committee and as approved by Director PRL.
The CPIO vide online reply dated 19.08.2019 denied the information under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.08.2019 and the same was not adjudicated.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through audio conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and it is noted that this Commission had heard an earlier Second Appeal filed by the same Appellant seeking similar information vide RTI application dated 10.07.2019. The said Second Appeal number CIC/DSPCE/A/2019/151474 had been decided by order dated 22.11.2021, with the following directions:
It is noted that the Appellant has been filing repeated RTI applications as frequently as on a monthly basis, seeking information which as an employee she Page 2 of 11 can access even outside the ambit of the RTI Act. Since the substantive issue had been adjudicated vide the above decision dated 22.11.2021, no ground for fresh adjudication is warranted in this case. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report with respect to the decision dated 22.11.2021, before the Commission by 15.04.2022.
(2) CIC/DSPCE/C/2020/685476 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.07.2020 seeking information on the following points:-
A Notification No: PRL/ADMIN/Switch Over/2015 dated July 16, 2015 was issued on the subject -Switching over from PRL review system to DOS/ISRO Norms/review system in respect of Administrative Personnel up to Rs.5400/-submission of option regarding.
In view of the above, following information are sought under RTI Act 2005:
1. Kindly provide signed and approved copy of -Guidelines issued on Review and Promotion Policy for Administrative Personnel on their Switchover of services from PRL Review System to ISRO/DOS Norms.
2. Kindly provide Signed and Approved Copy of Noting and correspondence, minutes of the meetings with respect to -Switchover of Administrative Personnel from PRL Review system to ISRO/DOS Norms, signed by all members of the Administrative Advisory Committee and final decision of mapping on switchover of Administrative Personnel to ISRO Norms as approved by Director, PRL with specific mention on approval for grant of Increments and or promotions that has brought the employees to their mapped positions/posts as on 01.07.2015.
3. Kindly provide signed copies of following:
a. Seniority list as on 01.01.2015 of Administrative personnel as per list annexed to Notification No: PRL/ADMIN/SWITCH OVER/2015 dated July 16, 2015 as approved by Director PRL.
b. Vacancy position of Posts in Administration, Purchase and Accounts Section up to Grade Pay Rs.8900/- or up to the apex scale in Administration as on 01.01.2015.
c. OMs placing individual personnel in posts and pay scale w.e.f. 01.07.2015 consequent on Switchover and the occasions such as NFSG, Promotion, and Additional increments etc., granted to respective staff as per list annexed to Notification No: PRL/ADMIN/SWITCH OVER /2015 dated July 16, 2015 after submission of Option Forms for switchover.
d. Whether Options were extended to individual personnel for fixation of pay as per FR 22 consequent on Switchover, If yes, copy of option forms submitted by individual as per list as annexed as per notification No:
PRL/ADMIN/SWITCH OVER /2015 dated July 16, 2015 for the purpose of Pay Fixation may kindly be provided.Page 3 of 11
e. Pay Fixation Orders as issued by competent authority to individual administrative personnel consequent on switchover as per list as annexed as per notification No: PRL/ADMIN/SWITCH OVER /2015 dated July 16, 2015.
f. Vacancy position of Posts in Administration, Purchase and Accounts Section up to Grade Pay Rs.8900/- post Switch over mapping i.e. as on 01.07.2015 g. Vacancy position of Posts in Administration, Purchase and Accounts Section up to Grade Pay Rs.8900/- or up to the apex scale in Administration as on 01.01.2016 h. Seniority list of all Personnel in Administration, Purchase and Accounts Section up to the apex scale in Administration in PRL as on 01.01.2016 including Prequalifying service of personnel whose service and pensionary benefits are transferred from their respective parent organisation and counted for all purposes of Service, Seniority and Pension at PRL.
The CPIO vide online reply dated 30.07.2020 replied as under:-
The information seeker and provider being part of the same system for evolving approaches to remove irritants in their mutual interaction, as a lot of public resources devoted to provide service to the entire Indian community is thus un-productively used and no good or public interest served. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. (Dr. K C Vijayakumaran Nair Vs. Department of Post CIC/PB/A/2007/00373 dated 14/06/2007) The applicant herself consented for switch-over as per policy.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 31.07.2020. The FAA vide online order dated 04.09.2020 held as under:-
On examination of application and reply furnished to the applicant by CPIO and appeal, I am of the opinion that, the appellant herself was assigned during February 2019 for issuance of pay fixation order of PRL Administrative staff pursuant to switch-over to DOS/ISRO norms w.e.f.01/07/2015 for which all connected documents were in the custody of the appellant for their reference.
RTI Act is a means to advance public interest; not to be used as a tool to harass the public authority by a workless or disgruntled employee serving/retired. His multiple RTI applications have a serious impact on the functioning of public authority, its RTI authorities and the Central Information Commission in Second Appeal. Officers also presented a bundle of files of the appellant. It reflects criminal wastage of time and, if unchecked, will chock the functioning of the public authority. If this is allowed, the public authority cannot focus Page 4 of 11 on their regular duties and their whole time will be devoted to such frivolous/vexatious/useless/repeated/multiple/obnoxious RTI questions. This is misuse and it has to be prevented." (H.K. Bansal v. DoT, New Delhi, CIC/BS/A/2014/002319SA) the appeal stands disposed of. Further, I am of the opinion that, reply furnished by CPIO is in order. The appeal is decided accordingly.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(3) CIC/DSPCE/C/2020/685555 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.07.2020 seeking information on 16 points related to PRL Employees Provident Fund for the period from 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2019:-
1. Guidelines on establishment, management and controlling of PRL Employees Provident Fund under categories GPF and CPF.
2. Office orders on mode of Functioning of PRL Employees Provident Fund as issued from time to time.
3. List of authorised officers along with their name and designation for PRL Employees Provident Fund.
4. List of Members and Trustees along with their name and designation as appointed to maintain and operate PRL Employees Provident Fund
5. List of Subscribers to PRL Employees Provident Fund under the categories GPF and CPF
6. List of new subscriber/s to PRL Employees Provident fund along with the details, 1.date of their entry into PRL Employees Provident Fund as subscriber, 2.occasion that brought them to be eligible for subscription towards GPF and CPF i.e whether on direct recruitment, appointment by transfer, movement of personnel from other departments including state/central / autonomous/ public sector bodies through direct recruitments/Deputations / transfers etc., 3.
Options extended to PRL employees to changeover to Pension Scheme etc.,
7. List of subscribers retired/ died/ quit service or is transferred to another office, full particulars as recorded in the list.
8. List of cases of transfer of a PRL Employees Provident Fund subscriber to another office, copy of necessary notes of transfer made in the list of both the offices
9. Year Wise list of transfer/appointment made of an employee from another office, copy of necessary notes of transfer made in the list of both the offices.
10. Investment policies adopted by PRL Employees Provident Fund
11. List of Financial Institutions/banks in which PRL Employees Provident Fund invested its funds.
Page 5 of 1112. Audited approved Financial Statements of PRL Employees Provident Fund
13. Copy of Options extended to PRL Employees to change over to pensionable Service and effect of GPF Fund thereof
14. Grant of option to the families of the PRL employees who die in harness to come over to Pension Scheme.
15. The liability and accountability of Authorised Officers / Members or trustees towards operating PRL Employees Provident fund.
16. Disciplinary proceeding prescribed by PRL for officials fixed with responsibility for erroneous transactions or mismanagement of PRL Employees Provident Fund.
The CPIO vide online reply dated 31.07.2020 replied as under:-
The information seeker and provider being part of the same system for evolving approaches to remove irritants in their mutual interaction, as a lot of public resources devoted to provide service to the entire Indian community is thus un-productively used and no good or public interest served. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the grab of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. (Dr. K C Vijayakumaran Nair Vs. Department of Post CIC/PB/A/2007/00373 dated 14/06/2007).
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 04.08.2020. The FAA vide online order dated 04.09.2020 held as under:-
On examination of application and reply furnished to the applicant by CPIO and appeal, I am of the opinion that, the appellant herself is connected with the GPF transactions of this institute since 2017, and also feels that, there is no larger public interest served on providing of required information for the period from 2000 to 2019.
The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under the clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analyzed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemption in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011 [arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009]) Para 37. "Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency Page 6 of 11 and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information.
The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497) RTI Act is a means to advance public interest; not to be used as a tool to harass the public authority by a workless or disgruntled employee serving/retired. His multiple RTI applications have a serious impact on the functioning of public authority, its RTI authorities and the Central Information Commission in Second Appeal. Officers also presented a bundle of files of the appellant. It reflects criminal wastage of time and, if unchecked, will chock the functioning of the public authority. If this is allowed, the public authority cannot focus on their regular duties and their whole time will be devoted to such frivolous/vexatious/useless/repeated/multiple/obnoxious RTI questions. This is misuse and it has to be prevented." (H.K.Bansal v. DoT, New Delhi, CIC/BS/A/2014/002319SA) the appeal stands disposed of. Further, I am of the opinion that, reply furnished by CPIO is in order. The appeal is decided accordingly.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(4) CIC/DSPCE/C/2020/686068 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 03.07.2020 seeking information on 16 points:-
Year wise information for the period 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2019 along with copies, on Contract workers deployed by PRL directly or indirectly through contracts for its various outsourced services is sought under RTI Act 2005.
1. Manual or Guidelines on Engagement of workers through contractors by PRL including any amendments thereof as issued from time to time.
2. Orders and provisions under which PRL is or has been engaging workers through contractors for various outsourced services at PRL.
3. If PRL has registered itself as Principal employer under various acts of labour laws of both state and central government, copy of such certificates, including renewal of certificates etc., if any, from time to time.
4. List of Outsourced services at PRL in all its campuses, along with information:Page 7 of 11
1. Name of the Contractor
2. Name of the work outsourced
3. Tenure of Contract
4. Value of Contract
5. Date of commencement and Closure of Contract
6. Copy of Muster roll submitted by Contractor during the currency of contract
7. Employee Card or Identity Card as issued separately by Contractor as service provider and PRL Identity card issued to deployed workers.
8. Rate Schedule for contract value including Cost of material, labour, item rate for services, labour cost including minimum daily wage, EPF, ESIC for employers contribution, bonus, if applicable
9. Copy of monthly bills submitted by Contractor during the tenure of contract including EPF and ESIC remittance slips of workers
10. List of Nodal Officers or Officers In-charge for each contract, Pay and Accounts Officer or Accounts Officer with Name and Designation, engaged for certifying payment of wages, remittance of EPF and ESIC, and all statutory payments and compensations made to workers deployed.
11. Copy of Registers, Records maintained by PRL for issue of Identity card, wage slip, EPF and ESIC Registration details for workers deployed under each contract
12. Name and designation of authorised officers for contact, in case of defaults, if any, by Contractor such as delay or non-payment of wages, leave, statutory remittances, compensation, health care, insurance to families of deceased employees, and any other benefits available to workers and their family members
13. Powers, responsibility and liability of Senior Head, Accounts & IFA of PRL in Outsourcing of Contracts as on date, from award of contract to, maintenance and in executing financial propriety as laid down under GFR 2017 and Delegation of Financial Powers Rules of DOS
14. List of Outsourced services as sanctioned by Senior Head Accounts & IFA till date.
15. Name of the incumbent Officers in the post of Senior. Head Accounts & IFA, PRL and the period of holding the post.
16. Name and Designation of Vigilance Officers and Head of Office of PRL for contact and complaints on issues arising on outsourced services and labour related issues.
The CPIO vide online letter dated 01.08.2020 replied as under:-
The information seeker and provider being part of the same system for evolving approaches to remove irritants in their mutual interaction, as a lot of public resources devoted to provide service to the entire Indian community is thus un-productively used and no good or public interest served. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the grab of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their Page 8 of 11 grievances. (Dr. K C Vijayakumaran Nair Vs. Department of Post CIC/PB/A/2007/00373 dated 14/06/2007) Dissatisfied with response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 05.08.2020. The FAA vide online order dated 04.09.2020 held as under:-
On examination of application and reply furnished to the applicant by CPIO and appeal, I am of the opinion that:
The 80% of out-sourced services are directly dealt by the applicant herself and the custody of documents are vested with her. Seeking information under RTI for documents under her own custody doesn't make any sense and also feels that, there is no larger public interest served on providing of required information for the period from 2000 to 2019.
The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under the clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analyzed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemption in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay&Ors. Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011 [arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009]) Para 37. "Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497) RTI Act is a means to advance public interest; not to be used as a tool to harass the public authority by a workless or disgruntled employee serving/retired. His multiple RTI applications have a serious impact on Page 9 of 11 the functioning of public authority, its RTI authorities and the Central Information Commission in Second Appeal. Officers also presented a bundle of files of the appellant. It reflects criminal wastage of time and, if unchecked, will chock the functioning of the public authority. If this is allowed, the public authority cannot focus on their regular duties and their whole time will be devoted to such frivolous/vexatious/useless/repeated/multiple/obnoxious RTI questions. This is misuse and it has to be prevented." (H.K.Bansal v. DoT, New Delhi, CIC/BS/A/2014/002319SA) the appeal stands disposed off. Further, I am of the opinion that, reply furnished by CPIO is in order. The appeal is decided accordingly.
Having not received any response from the PIO, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through audio conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and the Respondent contended that the Applicant has been filing RTI applications whenever she is not considered for any service benefit in order to settle her personal grievances. In fact the repeated and myriad queries raised by the Applicant has been adversely affecting the normal functioning of the public authority and causing unnecessary hindrance.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts of the aforementioned three complaints, it is noted that the nature of queries are similar and hence the three complaints are decided by a common order. The nature of queries are indicative of the fact that there is no larger public interest in obtaining such information which is already accessible to the Complainant being an employee of the Respondent public authority. The volume and pattern of queries also indicate that this is a glaring example of misuse of the RTI mechanism where it is evident that a never ending process of seeking information repeatedly has been resorted to by the information seeker by manufacturing a series of queries. Such methods resorted to by some information seekers clog the system causing hindrance in dissemination of information to other applicants and also prevents deserving cases from being adjudicated.
It is worthwhile to note that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on various occasions has taken adverse note of the misuse of the RTI Act. One of the instances being the decision dated 05.02.2014 passed in WP (C) No. 845/2014 titled Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors., whereby it was held as under:
"...This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and Page 10 of 11 confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law..."
In the light of the above discussion, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further action is warranted in the cases at hand. Before concluding the decision, the Commission wishes to advise the Applicant to refrain from misusing the provisions of this welfare legislation in order to settle her personal grievances and makes it clear that no further cases on the same subject matter from the Applicant and without reasonable cause, will be entertained in future by the Commission.
The aforementioned cases are disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 11 of 11