Central Information Commission
Arun Lata vs Central Reserve Police Force on 25 May, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2016/000766
Dated 18.05.2017
Appellant : Ms. Arun Lata,
C-1862, Palam Vihar,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122017.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
O/o the IGP, Madhya Pradesh Sector,
Central Reserve Police Force,
Bangraisa, Bhopal (M.P)
Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate General,
Central Reserve Police Force,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
Central Public Information Officer,
O/o DIGP, Group Centre,
Central Reserve Police Force,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
Date of Hearing : 18.04.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the Appeal:
RTI application : 17.11.2014
CPIO's reply : 12.12.2014/06.01.2015
First Appeal : 05.02.2015
Second appeal dated : 08.04.2016
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Police Headquarters (PHQ), Delhi Police seeking information on twenty points including (i) name and designation of the officials/officers who dealt the file for fixation of her Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) case from 2004 onwards and (ii) copies of all the note sheets and correspondence Page1 made/exchanged by DIG, Group Centre, CRPF Gurgaon and Bhopal with all the formations for fixation of her MACP case.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that despite prolonged correspondence she did not get any satisfactory reply and on appeal, the FAA did not pass any suitable order and failed to redress her grievances so far. The appellant requested the Commission to provide justice to her and punish the offenders suitably.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Ms. Arun Lata was present in person. The respondents Shri R.K. Agnihotri, Dy. Commandant, Group Centre Bhopal, CRPF, attended the hearing through video conferencing and Shri Amit Kumar, Sub-Inspector, Group Centre Gurgaon, CRPF was present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that she is not satisfied with information provided on point nos. (a), (l), (m), (n) and (p) of the RTI application. The appellant with respect to point no. (a) of the RTI application, submitted that she has not been granted the MACP benefits which were due from 30.04.2002 and the befits were only given from 2004. The appellant alleged that delay in grant of benefits is because the enclosures sent with her representation for grant of MACP to Group Centre Gandhi Nagar were not complete. Hence, she had sought information regarding the name and designation of officers who have dealt with the file concerning the grant of MACP benefits to her. The appellant with respect to point no. (p) of the RTI application, submitted that she had sought information regarding her leave encashment recalculation. The appellant further stated that as on date of her retirement (06/2009), she had 300 days of Earned Leaves (EL) and 292 days of Leave Half Pay (LHP) in her leave account. However, only 157 EL and 111 LHP have been encashed.
5. The respondent submitted that point wise information as per available records has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 11.06.2015. The Page2 respondent further submitted that the appellant was informed that her case was sent to Group Centre, Gandhi Nagar vide letter dated 28.10.2012. The respondent with respect to point no. (a) of the RTI application submitted that name of the officers who have dealt with the appellant's MACP file cannot be disclosed as the staff of Group Centre, Gurgaon is working on behalf of the DIGP, CRPF, Gurgaon. The respondent with respect to point no. (p) of the RTI application submitted that the appellant had sought information regarding the diary nos. of her various applications sent to Group Centre, Bhopal in connection with her MACP case and leave enchashment. However, the said information could not be provided to the appellant as there was no mention of the Registered Letter Nos. (RL No.) in the RTI application. The respondent also stated that the appellant is seeking redressal of his grievances. However, the RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances and there are other appropriate fora for resolving such matters.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that information on point no. (p) of the RTI application has not been provided to the appellant since the RL Nos. of various representations sent by the appellant to GC, Bhopal were not mentioned by her. In view of this, the Commission directs the appellant to provide the RL Nos. to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this decision. The Commission further directs the respondent to provide information on point no. (p) of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of specific details from the appellant.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page3
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Page4