Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

V Santhiyagu vs Indian Navy on 7 August, 2023

                                  के ीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                              बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/INAVY/A/2022/145470

Shri V. Santhiyagu                                             ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam                ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Captain Anup Kumar - CPIO

Date of Hearing                        :    07.08.2023
Date of Decision                       :    07.08.2023
Chief Information Commissioner         :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on                :   20.04.2022
PIO replied on                          :   10.05.2022
First Appeal filed on                   :   01.06.2022
First Appellate Order on                :   18.07.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on         :   22.09.2022

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.04.2022 seeking the following information:-

1. I state that I joined Grade-II, direct recruitment as M.T. Driver in the Navy service in the year 1981. A person who joined as Ordinary driver required to serve and complete 9 years of service to get promotion to Grade II.

Whereas, I joined as Grade II M.T. Driver directly and completion of 9 years of service stipulation does not arise at all.

2. For promotion to Grade I.M.T. Driver, completion of 6 years service is sufficient. As such I had completed 6 years service in the year 1987 itself, whereas I was promoted to grade IMT Driver on 1st July 1995 after completion of 14 years of service in the Grade II Cadre.

3. In accordance with Ministry of Defence Letter No. PC(1)/94/Civ.-I dated 05.12.96. My pay should have been revised to in scale of Pay Rs. 1320- 2040-from Rs. 1150-1500, but it was not done.

Etc. In these circumstances he sought the following information:

(1) What is the Audit observation? When audit dropped the above objection on receipt of your suitable reply? (2) When the Hon'ble C A T cases started and the date and year on which the cases were finally disposed of?

(3) Dhanasekaran, Serial No.24 were given promotion as Supervisor though he is far junior to me in Seniority. (my Seniority No.10) Inform the reason for ignoring my promotion?

(4) It may also may be stated whether any MT Drivers in other states like Orissa, Goa and Mumbai were given promotion during the pendency of cases in CAT?

The CPIO/Captain, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam vide letter dated 10.05.2022 replied as under:

(a) Query 1.There is no mention of the audit observation with regards to which information is being sought. Hence, no information can be provided.

(b) Query 2.No particulars relevant to the CAT case have been mentioned in order to examine the same. Hence, no information can be provided.

(c) Query 3.You are retired w.e.f. 29 Feb. 12. Shri Dhanasekaran with whom you are comparing, got promoted as Supervisor in the year 2014 as per his relative position in seniority.

(d) Query 4.Civilian Motor Drivers borne in the units which fall under the purview of this Command are being promoted on fulfillment of eligibility criteria as per relevant Recruitment Rules. However, no information is held with respect to other units/commands. HQENC letter CE/2007/CMD/GEN dated 08 Jan 2021 is placed at Enclosure in this regard.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.06.2022. The FAA/Vice Admiral, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam vide order dated 18.07.2022 stated that the RTI Act, 2005 provides a forum to obtain information. The prayer in the Appeal is for redressal of grievances, which needs to be taken up in appropriate forum.

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

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from CPIO vide letter dated 01.08.2023 providing detailed factual report of the matter.

Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone attended the hearing through video conference, while the Appellant remained absent and has not communicated the cause of his absence to the Commission.

Decision:

Perusal of the facts of the appeal at hand reveals that the instant case pertains to service related grievance of the Appellant. The Respondent has responded to the queries raised by the Appellant in conformity with the provisions of the RTI Act. In the absence of the Appellant, the cause of his dissatisfaction with the information provided by the Respondent cannot be ascertained.

Considering the fact that the written submission dated 01.08.2023 filed by the Respondent had not been sent to the Appellant, the Respondent is hereby directed to send him, a copy of the same with the relevant supporting documents, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard by 31.08.2023.

The appeal is decided on the above terms.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Page 3 of 3