Central Information Commission
Binoy Chandra Sarma vs Comptroller & Auditor General on 13 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CAGIN/A/2023/605449
Binoy Chandra Sarma ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: O/o. The Accountant
General (A&E), Guwahati ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 12.09.2022 FA : 16.11.2022 SA : Nil
CPIO : 19.10.2022 FAO : 05.01.2023 Hearing : 04.12.2024
Date of Decision: 10.01.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"Reference 1. Vide order no. TEC.34/97/P1/71 dtd.15-05-2000 [photocopy along with a type copy attached at sl.1.] AICTE pay scale was extended to the Controller. Deputy Controller, etc. citing equivalence with other existing posts without stating the pay amount. Accordingly, Accountant General, Assam issued pay slips to the above incumbents without asking anything regarding incorporation of the above posts in subsequent ROP. For example, Assistant Controller was issued pay slip by the AG, Assam (photocopy attached at sl.2.] which is found NOWHERE in any cadre in the Assam Technical Service Rule, Page 1 of 8 AICTE pay scale-based ROP notifications/Orders. ROP 2010 or ROP2017. Similar case is with the post of Deputy Controller drawing AICTE pay equal to the HOD, Polytechnic which is neither in the Service Rule nor in ROP notifications with AICTE pay.
Reference.2: In the last paragraph of the letter from AG, Assam Vide GE5/Edn/JD/2015-16/1863- 64 dtd. 04-03-16(photocopy attached at sl.3.), Assam Govt. was requested to examine the matter & intimate the office of the AG, Assam, so as to enable the office of the AG, Assam to fix the pay scale of the Workshop Superintendent, Engineering College urgently.
Reference 3: Accordingly, the Govt. examined the matter as per views of the Judicial Deptt. Govt. of Assam photocopy attached at sl.4.) & intimated the AG, Assam in the last paragraph vide Speaking order No. ATE.204/2015/281 dtd.24- 02-22 [photocopy attached at sl.5.] that the equivalence of pay scale of HOD, Polytechnic to be considered for the post of Workshop Superintendent, Engineering College.
Referenc.4: AG, Assam denied the pay slip & sent its 3d letter to the Higher Education Department, Govt. of Assam to incorporate the post in the Workshop Superintendent, Engineering College in the ROP 2010 & 2017. The AG, Assam also referred to the Selection Grade pay scale for this post [photocopy attached at sl.6.] although pay slips were issued to a few Lecturers directly promoted to the post of HOD in Polytechnics vide Govt. order no. TEC.190/2003/342 dtd. 06-12- 2005 photocopy attached at sl.7.] without asking for the Selection Grade pay for them.
(i) Prior to the issuance of pay slip to the (a)Deputy Controller (b)Controller
(c)Joint Director etc., whether any letter from the AG, Assam was issued to the Higher Education Department, Govt. of Assam for incorporation of the posts of Page 2 of 8 the Controller. Deputy Controller, Joint Director etc. in the AICTE based ROP2010 & 2017? [Ref.1]
(a) If yes, please furnish a copy of the letter to my following address.
(b)If no, please let me know the reason in written to my following address.
(ii) AG, Assam has been waiting for selection grade pay scale for the post of Workshop Superintendent, Engineering College from the Govt. [Ref.4] whereas it never asked for the same for the Lecturers directly promoted to the post of HOD in Polytechnics vide Govt. order no. TEC.190/2003/342 dtd. 06-12-
2005.Whether there is any such selection grade pay scale for the post of Workshop Superintendent, Engineering College exists in any Govt. service rule/notification available with AG, Assam?
(c)If yes, please furnish me a copy.
(d)If no, please let me know the reason of the statement made in the letter no.GE.5/EDN/2022- 23/Court case dtd. 13-05-22 in written to my following address."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
(i) "Pay slips are issued on the strength of Govt. Notification No. TEC 94/97/38 Dated 15.05.1999 (Copy enclosed).
(ii) As per Govt. Notification of Higher Education (CTM) Department orders, Sr. Lecturer/lecturer of Polytechnics of Assam are promoted temporarily for one year and appointed to Officiate as HOD in different branches of polytechnics under Regulation 1951, this office issue pay slips to the respective Sr. Lecturers/Lecturer.
Yes, Copy of Govt. notification No. ABP 98/2017/38 Dated 19.07.2021 is enclosed."
Page 3 of 83. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 05.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil stating inter alia as under:
"I therefore request the 2nd Appellate Authority kindly to make necessary arrangement to furnish me any such Selection Grade pay scale for the post of Workshop Superintendent, Engineering College existing in any Assam Govt. Service Rule/Notification if available with the A G, Assam."
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Snehashish Mukherjee, DAG & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Appellant argued at length to challenge the factual merits of the information provided by the CPIO claiming it to be false and baseless and raised arguments that were not even amenable to the mandate of the RTI Act.
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and relied on the extrapolation of the said information as mentioned in their written submissions dated 02.12.2024.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes at the outset that the relief sought for in the Second Appeal as mentioned above is not even maintainable under the RTI Act. Nonetheless, the Commission has taken up the matter on merits and observes that even as the Appellant has not sought for any information as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the CPIO has provided adequate clarifications in keeping with the spirit of 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 Page 4 of 8 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 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:
Page 5 of 8"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) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(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;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied) Page 6 of 8
9. Furthermore, the Appellant is also 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:
"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)
10. Having observed as above, no relief or action is warranted in the matter.
11. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Page 7 of 8Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 10.01.2025 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO O/o. The Accountant General (A&E), Assam, CPIO, RTI Cell, Maidamgaon, Beltola, Guwahati-781029
2. Binoy Chandra Sarma Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)