Central Information Commission
S S Tomar vs Department Of Expenditure on 21 March, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOEXP/A/2022/132826
S S Tomar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department Of Expenditure,
E-III(A) Branch, RTI Cell, North Block,
New Delhi-110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20/03/2023
Date of Decision : 20/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/01/2022
CPIO replied on : 25/02/2022
First appeal filed on : 22/03/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 06/04/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04/07/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.01.2022 seeking the following information:
"i. Provide Copies of complete file noting of Government, MOF 2008 based on method of Rule 7(A) (ii) of CCS (RP) Rules 2008 , as to how, the special fitment tables for the pay scales S-24 (14300-400-18300), S-25 (15100-400-18300) S-26 (16400-450-20000) and 5-27 (16400-450-20900) stage wise were worked out in Pay Band PB-4 scale 37400-67000. Where special tables of S-26 and S-27 are having with lesser revised pay to subordinate S-25, at their analogous stages of pre- revised scales, ii. The Hon'ble CAT Chandigarh in order dated 28th July, 2017 ordered that the expunged order dated 30.07.2014, being inadequate, is accordingly quashed and it is conceded by everyone that this is an anomaly and the justification for continuing this anomaly is not forthcoming in any of the documents placed before us (the Hon'ble judges) by the respondents. Therefore,
a) Provide Copies of documents for the justification of continuing the anomaly allegedly accepted by the respondents and stated "it is a slight difference in the fitment of S-25 vis-à-vis S-26 is not the case of anomaly but is a conscious decision of the Government" Where the court, has declared, this is an anomaly.
b) Provide Copy of Rule based on a Conscious decision has been taken by the Government that allowed the government to play with the fundamental right of senior scale employees based on respondent evidently written and declared in reply dated 17.04.2018 that employees belonging to junior scale S-25 are given higher salary than employees belonging to senior scale S-26 is a conscious decision of the Government.
iii. Provide Copies of Rules that are construed as misinterpretation/ misunderstanding of the Rules by the applicant (S S Tomar), described by Respondent, in reply dated 17th April 2018 based on the fitment tables having higher fitment of S-25 (Rs. 46050+ GP Rs. 8700) vis-a-vis S-26 ( 43390 +GP Rs.8900) at the same stage of Rs. 19100, the basic pay, Also at the same stage Rs. 19100 in subordinate scale S-24 (143000-400-18300) becomes Rs. 53400 (44700+ GP 8700) while those in superior scale S-26 (16400-450-20000) are with lesser revised pay Rs. 52290 (43390+GP8900). Despite the facts, S-26 senior scale had lesser pay, the respondents emphasize that it is not an anomaly, iv. Pay Scale 8-22 (12750-375-16500) and S-25 (15100-400-18300) are the scales of IAS and edge recommendation to these scales , thus, (A) Specify the edge recommendation to S-22 scale (12750-375-16500) is over junior S-21 scale (12000-375-16500) OR over senior S-23 scale (12000-375-18000). Similarly, the edge recommendation to S-25 scale (15100-400-18300) is over junior scale S-24 scale (14300-400- 18300) OR Senior S-26 Scale (16400-450-20000).
(B) Provide a copy of Rules, also method as to how, MOF has provided equal revised basic Pay Rs, 32790/- with no difference and without anomaly in revised pay at identical pre-revised basic pay Rs. 17625/- of three 5th CPC pay scales S-21 (Rs.12000-375-16500), S-22 (12750-375- 16500) and 5-23 (12000-375-18000) designed by Government of India, MOF, Dept. of Expenditure and implemented w.e.f 01.01.2006. Superior Scale S-23 has no disadvantage either due the Stagnation Pay of scale S- 21 and S-22 or because of inherent element of edge recommendation to S-22 over S-21 scale by the CPC in respect of the Indian Administrative services. Table - B, at point 7 above, is for ready reference.
v. Provide a copy of Rules, also method that allow MOF, as to how employees belong to inferior/subordinate scales S-24 and S-25, having Basic Pay Rs. 19100, are provided higher revised pay of Rs. 44700 and Rs. 46050 respectively than employees belonging to superior scale S-26 and S-27, at same Basic Pay of Rs. 19100, are given lower revised pay of Rs. 43390 only in revision of salary, whereas, scale S-21, S-22 and S-23 which have same analogy, i.e stage of stagnation pay and element of edge, at the pay of Rs. 17625 for scales S-21, S- 22 and S-23, the revised basic pay corresponding to the pre-revised basic Pay Rs. 17625, given in the fitment tables circulated vide MOF OM NO. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30.08.2008, becomes same Rs. 32790 with no difference at all.
vi. Provide a copy of Rule, based on, it became possible to MOF Government to create a new HAG scale 67000-79000 in 2009 again to change a revised fitment table P6-4 scale 37400-67000 having Grade Pay 12000 of government revised pay of MOF OM No.1- 1/2008-1C dated 30.08.2008. Whereas, for S-26 that has improper revised pay in fitment table PB-4 Grade Pay Rs. 8900, as to how, MOF say "At this stage, it is not possible to consider any changes therein in respect of any pay scales."
vii. Provide Copies of Complete file noting with all representations of officers belonging to S-30 scale 22400-525-24500 with complete state of affairs that compelled and necessitated HAG fitment tables for the pre-revised pay scale S- 30 and accordingly it became possible to consider change therein the fitment table of Grade pay Rs. 12000/- of P13-4 scale 37400-67000 to new HAG scale 67000-79000.
viii. Provide a copy of Rule, accordingly every single stage 18400, 21900, 22400 stagnation stages 22900, 23400 and 23900 of S-29 scale (18400-500-22400) and similarly every single stage 22400, 22925, 23450, 23975 and 24500 of S-30 scale (22400-525-24500) are fixed with one increment for one stage of the said pre- revised scales S-29 and S-30 in Pay Band PB-4 scale (37400-67000). Also, specify as to how fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure Rule No. 7(A) (ii) of CCS (RP) Rules 2008 has not been followed in fixation of pay, regarding the above mention stages, where, in fixation of pay, the pay of Government servants, in Pay Band PB-4 scale 37400-67000 is to be fixed one increment for event two stages taking into account all the stages, so bunched, in the pre-revised scale (s). ix.
(A). Provide a copy of the modus operandi, the Government used to fix initial revised pay Rs. 39690 in Pay Band PB-4 scale 37400-67000 for stage Rs.15100 of S-25(15100-400-18300) and also for stage Rs. 16400 of S-26 (16400-450-20000) as illustrated in Table --C of the Government.
ix (B) Specify whether Table- D is according to fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure Rule 7(A) (ii) of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 and assured for Rule 2.2.21 of 61" CPC report March 2008 that reproduced as "It has also ensured that a person drawing higher basic pay in any Fifth CPC pay scale is not fitted lower vis-a-vis a person drawing a lower basic pay irrespective of the pay scale.
ix (C) Specify whether Table-D fulfill all the requirement of stagnation of pay and element of edge recommended by the 61" Central Pay Commission in respect of the Indian Administration Service in the same way fitment tables for S-21, S-22 and S-23 designed by the Government that have same analogy, i.e stage of stagnation pay and element of edge recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission in respect of the Indian Administration Service at the pay of Rs. 17625 for scales S-21, S-22 and S-23, the revised basic pay corresponding to the pre-revised basic Pay Rs. 17625, given in the fitment tables circulated vide MOF OM NO. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30.08.2008, becomes same Rs. 32790 + GP 7600 with no difference at all. Table --B at point 7 above is self-explanatory.
ix (D) Specify whether Table --D is perfectly proper as per the Rule and free from the anomaly as illustrated in Table- C designed by Government in year 2008, where on the anomaly of Table --C, in the Hon'ble CAT Chandigarh in order dated 281" July, 2017 ordered that the expunged order dated 30.07.2014, being inadequate, is accordingly quashed and it is conceded by everyone that this is an anomaly.
ix (E) Provide a copy of Rule where, an employee belonging to S-25 drawing a basic pay of Rs. 19100 in pre-revised scale 15100-400-18300 could be given that entitles him to get more revised pay Rs. 46050 than an employee drawing the same basic pay of Rs. 19100 but belonging to higher S-26 category, scale 16400- 450-20000, is entitled for lesser revised pay Rs. 43390 (Table-C). And both are not entitled for equal revised pay Rs. 46050.in PB-4 scale 37400-67000.at analogous stage Rs. 19100 of the scales S-25 vis-à-vis S-26 as derived in Table-D above."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 25.02.2022 stating as under:
"It is sated that the information sought by you is general in nature having no reference regarding file no./reference no./OM/ date etc. from which the requisite information/document(s)/note sheet(s) are required and also have sought clarification/opinion of this CPIO with regard to Rule 7(A)(ii) of CCS(RP) Rules 2008, fitment table circulated vide MOF's OM No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 30.8.2008 in respect of S-26, S-26.
In this regard it is stated that as per RTI Act, 2005, the Public Authority is supposed to furnish only such information which is available in a material form. CPIO is also not supposed to give opinion/advice or to solve problems / queries / clarifications / interpretations /inferences / assumption raised by the applicant or to deduce conclusion from the information held by it, under RTI Act. Since the desired information does not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005 and also it has not been mentioned the relevant file No./reference No./OM etc. from which the requisite information is required, the information in this regard may be treated as Nil."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.03.2022. FAA's order dated 06.04.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Krishan Kumar Sapra, US (E-III A) & CPIO present through intra- video conference.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI Application and sought for the intervention of the Commission for redressal of his grievances.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant is asking for clarifications which he is unable to provide within the framework of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission observes that the Appellant has rather misconstrued the mandate of the RTI Act to a great extent and he is therefore advised to acquaint himself with the same for future guidance. The contents of the RTI Application, the issues raised in the Appeal(s) or during the hearing, none of it concern the mandate of the RTI Act or the jurisdiction of the CPIO or that of the FAA or the Commission under 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 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 washeld 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:
"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 Similarly, the Appellant is 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) The Appellant is therefore advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future. He is further advised to pursue the grievances before the appropriate forum.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक /