Central Information Commission
V Balarama Murthy vs Department Of Food & Public ... on 18 December, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOFPD/A/2023/141737
Shri V Balarama Murthy ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Department of Food & Public Distribution, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Consumer Affairs
Date of Hearing : 09.12.2024
Date of Decision : 09.12.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.02.2023
PIO replied on : 16.02.2023
First Appeal filed on : 04.03.2023
First Appellate Order on : 17.03.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 25.10.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"a. Copy of letter forwarding OM No.4/1/87-1TC-1 dated 5.01.1987 of Ministry of Pension & Pensioners Welfare to Food Corporation of India together with instructions for implementation.
b. Copy of letters in correspondence with the Ministry of Pension and Pensioners Welfare from Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution with reference to para 7.2 of the said OM dated 5.01.1987 referred to above.
c. Copy of note file pertaining to further action initiated for implementation of the instructions contained in the said OM.
d. Letters received from FCI seeking instructions on implementation of Pension Scheme for employees of FCI.
e. Copy of Cabinet note prepared by Ministry seeking approval on implementation of Pension Scheme for employees of FCI f. Copy of minutes of meeting dated-5.03.2014 of the Cabinet Secretariat relating to implementation of Pension Scheme for employees of FCI. Etc."
The CPIO/US, Department of Food & Public Distribution vide letter dated 16.02.2023 replied as under:-
Page 1 of 3"Sir, I am directed to refer to your RTI application No. DOFPD/R/P/23/dated 01.02.2023, which has been transferred to undersigned on 15.2.2023 by CPIO, FC- 1 Section DFPD and to say that information sought through point no. m seems to be concerned with FC- III Section of DFPD.
2. With regard to point no. m, regarding grant of liberalized pension to Food Transferee, it is informed that this Department had examined the matter twice in 2017 & again in 2021. After examining all aspects, it had not been found feasible to amend the Food Corporations Act, 1964 (FC Act) and allow the retired persons to opt for the Liberalised Pension Scheme. For reply on remaining points your application is also being transferred to FCI HỌ."
The CPIO, FCI vide letter dated 17.03.2023 replied as under:-
"1-3.Information not available with this section
4. FCI circular No. FCIDCPS- 01/2016/ACCTS dated 30.12.2016 (attached). 5-7. pertains to ministry.
8-9. Not traceable.
10. Pertains to EI and E.II section of FCI Hqrs.
11. Circular No.11-4/71-EP dated 24.07.1971 (attached).
12. Circular No. 24 of 1996 dated 26.06.1996.(attached).
13. Letter dated 29.08.2017 and Ministry letter No. F.No. 19011/16//2020-FC- 3 dated 11.08.021 (attached)"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.03.2023. The FAA, Director (FC-III) vide order dated 17.03.2023 held as under:-
"2. The appeal has been considered in detail and it has observed that the RTI application was received on transfer from other CPIO(FC-I) to CPIΟ (FC-III Section). CPIO(FC-I) has already sent reply vide letter no.21- 1/2023-FC.I dated 10.2.2023. It may be noted CPIO is supposed to supply information which is available with him. As CPIO(FC-III) was not dealing with information regarding Direct Recruit it was not available with him. In fact the RTI application was transferred to him as stated above by CPIO(FC- I) itself, who has been dealing with DR.
3. The RTI application contained point (a) to (m), out of which point (m) pertained to FC-III. Section As desired latest position on the same was conveyed. Point (m)of the application concerned to liberalized pension, the CPIO/Undersecretary (FC-III Section) vide letter dated 16.02.2023 had provided information (latest position on liberalized Pension to Food Transferee). Therefore, information available with FC-III Section in respect of point (m) has already been provided. With regard to remaining points, application had already been transferred to FCI by CPIO (FC-I). Same was also forwarded to FCI by CPIO (FC-III).
4. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the CPIO (FC-III). Accordingly appeal stands disposed off.
5. The applicant has attached a postal order with no. 55F 163497 of Rs. 10/- which is not required to attach as fee for filing appeal. Hence, Postal order is returned along with this letter."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 11.11.2024 has been received from CPIO stating as under:
I am directed to refer to the above mentioned subject and state that hearing on the identical issue has already been attended by the CPIO(FC-I), CPIO of FCI and Page 2 of 3
2. After hearing the both parties, the Hon. Chief Information Commissioner disposed of the appeal and directed CPIO (FC-I), vide its order dated 28.08.2024 (copy enclosed at Anx.I) to forward a copy of submissions to the appellant.
3. In compliance to the above direction, a copy of submissions pertaining to CPIO (FC-I) has already been forwarded to appellant on 26.09.2024 (copy enclosed at Annexure-II) A copy of the same has also been marked to the Appellant.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Anuj Gautam CPIO and Shri Ajay Kumar Singh - US were present during hearing.
Both parties reiterated their respective contentions, wherein the Respondent stated that response had been sent by the PIO on 17.03.2023. He further referred to the written submission dated 11.11.2024 stating that the subject matter of the appeal at hand had been duly decided by this Commission's order dated 28.08.2024 as second appeal number CIC/MCAFP/A/2023/126042 with a direction to forward a copy of the submissions to the Appellant. The Respondent's submission also reveals that direction of the Commission had been duly complied and a copy of the submissions had been forwarded to the Appellant on 26.09.2024.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that information available on record with the public authority and defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, had been duly provided to the Appellant vide PIO's responses dated 16.02.2023 and 17.03.2023. Moreover, as pointed out by the Respondent the Commission has already decided the subject matter of this appeal vide order dated 28.08.2024 and directions of the Commission stands duly complied by the Respondent on 26.09.2024. In the given circumstances, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
In view of the Appellant's contention during the hearing, the Respondent is directed to send another copy of the written submission dated 11.11.2024 with annexures to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)