Central Information Commission
Dhirendra Singh Raghuwanshi vs Military Engineer Services on 27 February, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MESER/A/2024/628069
Dhirendra Singh Raghuwanshi ............Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO Central Record
Office Military Engineer
Services, Tigris Road, New
Delhi-110010
Date of Hearing : 23.02.2026
Date of Decision : 27.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.03.2024
CPIO replied on : 03.04.2024
First appeal filed on : 16.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.06.2024
Second Appeal dated : 03.07.2024
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.03.2024 seeking following information:
"(a) Authority Competent, who can reduce the pension of Group A officers along with the authority letter for the same.
(b) Authority who has reduced my Pension along with approval/sanction letter of the same.
(c) Copy of relevant appendix submitted by my last posted office regarding details of my last 10 months emoluments for calculating the pension.
(d) Copy of PTO/office Order under which casualty of reduction in basic pay has been published. If the same is not published then basis on which my Pension has been reduced."
2. CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 03.04.2024 stating as under:
"Refer your RTI application bearing registration No MESER/R/E/24/00798 dated 20 Mar 2024. In this connection, the following letters are fwd herewith for your info and necessary action please
(a) This office letter No CRO/25/DSR/05/2023/GP-II (V) dated 25 Apr 2023 along with its enclosures
(b) DG (Pers) E-in-C's Branch letter No 8/46600/119/E1 Legal (O) dated 27 Mar 2023.
Along with this reply following two letters are found enclosed: -
Letter dated 27.03.2023 states as under:-
"...Higher HQs has directed to challenge the Honb'le CAT order dated 21.11.2022 before Honb'le high Court of Delhi."
Letter dated 25.04.2023 states as under: -
(i) Refer process of pension papers under SPARSH in r/o above named offr.
(ii) Pay in r/o above named offr was fixed in Level-13 of pay matrix on a/c of 1st Cadre Review of BS Cadre in MES during Jun 2018 and accordingly offr getting pay in Level-13. Now pension papers in r/o MES-423501 Shri Dhirendra Singh Raghuwanshi, PBSO (GPF No. 01075777) of HQ Chief Engineer Southern Command, Pune has been initiated with pay in Level-12 as the Cadre Review of BS Cadre is kept Page 2 of 5 on hold and status-quo continued to be maintained till finalization of review by competent authority. In this connection a copy of MoD letter dt 17 Sep 2018 and E-in-C's Br letter dt 21 Sep 2020 is encl for perusal.
(iii) In view of the above, it is requested to verify the pay in r/o above named offr under Level-12 of the pay matrix as per the calculation sheet enclosed.
3. Being dissatisfied the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.04.2024.
4. The FAA vide its order dated 05.06.2024 stated as under:
(i) Para 1: No such information available with this office
(ii) Para 2: DG (pers)/CSCC/E-in-c's Branch nos 76002/1st CR/BS cadre/CSCC dated 21.17.2020 and B/466001/119/E1 Legal (0) dated 27.03.2023.
(iii) Para 3: Copy Enclosed
(iv) Para 4: No such information available with this office. This disposes of his RTI Application.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Mr. Dhirender Singh Respondent: Mr. Ram Ratan Meena, MES, Mr. Sombir Singh, MES
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeals on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record
7. The Appellant inter alia submitted that his PPO has been fixed on the basis of wrongful calculation and that without assigning any valid reason his pension has been reduced. He stated that he is presently receiving a reduced pension and that the order of the First Appellate Authority is not satisfactory, particularly as no clear and specific reply has been provided on points (a), (b) and (d) of his RTI application. The Appellant further submitted that the letters which have been forwarded in reply were not implemented till his retirement in any case of the whole BS Cadre personnel. He contended that the status quo as decided by the department was maintained against the implemented portion of the first Cadre Review and no action on the letters issued by the department for withdrawal of the points implemented under the first Cadre Review was taken till his retirement.
Page 3 of 58. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the matter pertains to another department and that after the Cadre Review, changes were made in the pay level. It was further submitted that since the Cadre Review has been kept on hold, status quo is being maintained and pension has been processed accordingly. He further clarified that the pension of the appellant has not been reduced but fixed as per the changes made in the pay levels.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the appellant had sought information about the competent authority empowered to reduce pension of Group 'A' officers, the authority who actually ordered reduction of his pension along with approval/sanction letter, and the copy of PTO/Office Order etc. The Commission observes that the replies furnished by the CPIO and upheld by the FAA does not clearly and categorically provide the information sought in point a, b, and d.
The Commission observes that a non-speaking reply that the information is "not available" without clarifying whether it is not maintained, not held, or pertains to another authority, defeats the very objective of transparency envisaged under the RTI Act.
Further, during the hearing respondent submitted that the information sought pertains to another public authority, however, the Commission observes that RTI application has never been transferred to any other authority.
In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondent CPIO to obtain the relevant information from the concerned sections/divisions, as required, and provide a revised reply to the Appellant specifically on points
(a), (b) and (d) of the RTI application, within 30 days from the date of this hearing.
With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (सं जीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) date: 27.02.2026 Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Col. Prabhat Kumar Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
1. The CPIO Central Record Office Military Engineer Services, Tigris Road, New Delhi-110010
2. Dhirendra Singh Raghuwanshi Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)