Central Information Commission
Ramesh Chandra vs Mcd on 10 November, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2024/116724
Ramesh Chandra .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Deputy Health Officer-City S.P.Zone,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Public Health Department, City S.P.
Zone, Old Hindu College
Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 ..... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.11.2025
Date of Decision : 10.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 16.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 15.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 21.05.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.02.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"kindly provide the reply of the following Questions in black and white within the stipulated period under RTI Act 2005. The questions which do not belong to you may be send to the concerned dept. within five days of the receipt of this RTI under RTI Act 2005.Page 1 of 8
All the following questions pertain to the applicant as being a departmental case.
(1):- If a Junior official during his service period has gotten more monthly total emoluments with grade pay and after the retirement has been getting pesion more than his Senior official in that case if any departmental information if sought in a proper manner by the DHO of that zone from where the Senior official had retired, the DHO of that concerned Zone from where the junior official had retired is liable or not to provide the required information regarding to get the fixation of pay compared with junior official to remove the anomaly of the Senior Official. If answer to this question is in negative then provide the reason and define that such rule under which it is not applicable although being a departmental case and a copy of such rule may also be provided please, If answer is yes then explain the stipulated time frame during which information has to be provided.
(2):- If an employee had gotten his pay fixation done illegally with the mutual understanding of the concerned Bill clerk of the Department for getting the extra financial benefits, in that case employee himself will be held responsible who got it done in favor of him or the Bill clerk concerned of the department who did it will be held responsible or both (Employee & Bill clerk concerned)? Please clarify and define what action is to be taken by the department against both (employee & Bill clerk) or any one of them for such type of illegal financial fraud ?
(3):- In connection with the question no.2, regarding given the illegal extra financial benefits to the suspicious employee, will department investigate the such fraud or not? If answer is yes, then what lawful action under IPC has to be taken against the Deceiver/Deceivers for such illegal financial fraud please define? If answer is in negative then reason may be given for not taking the action against the such fraudulent activity.
(4):- In connection with the question no.2, if the deceiver is found himself ie (employee/retired official) for such illegal financial fraud who got it done then what type of lawful action has to be taken against him under IPC please define?
(5):- In connection with the question no.2, if an employee or retired official found guilty for getting his pay fixation done illegally in that case, is recovery from his pension has to be done by the department from the date of his fixation of pay done illegally? Please reply yes or no. If answer Page 2 of 8 is negative then provide copy of such rule under which recovery can not be done from the date of his pay fixation ?
(6):- Regarding my previous RTI the applicant attended the JANSUNWAI on dated 07/10/2022 held under the chairmanship of DC/City SPZ. In the Jan-Sunwai all the heads of each department of the Zone were available including DHO/City SPZ.The DC of the Zone heard the applicant and directed the DHO to help in-connection with the RTI and then issue was discussed with DHO/CitySPZ in his office and I had also handed overe copies of some office order regarding the promotion of the applicant and Mr. Rav Shankar Sharma from the initial date of pointment as Sanitary Guide to the post of Surveillance Worker (now AMI), which shows that ppplicant is Senior than Mr. Ravi Shankar Sharma. DHO/CSPZ had also given the written directions on the same Office Order copy to investigate the fixation of pay of Mr. Ravi Shankar Sharma (the photo copy of the same order on which direction were given is also enclosed herewith for reference please). It was also suggested the undersigned by the DHO/City SPZ to apply to the concerned DDO/RZ for getting the anomaly done in fixation of pay then the required information will be provided by the City SPZ on official demand of the DDO/RZ. Accordingly I had also applied for the same. In connection with this question please clarify whether the investigation of the fixation of pay of Mr. Ravi Shankar Sharma has been done or not.
If reply to this question (no.6) is yes, then what decripencies in the pay fixation were detected and what action by the department has been taken against the guiltyy please clarify in black and white ?
If reply to this question (no.6) is in negative then reason may be given for not getting the investigation done of the fixation of pay of Mr. Ravi Shankar Sharma and what action was taken by the department against the concerned official for non compliance of the orders of the DHO/CitySPZ dated 07/10/2022.
(7):- As the applicant had applied to the DHO/RZ/MCD to get the anomaly done in fixation of pay/pension vide application dated 28/11/2022 vide Diary no.2039 with 44 nos of all the relevant essential officials documentary evidences and the same file has been sent by the DDO/RZ to DHO/City SPZ on 19/10/2023 vide no.1929 for needful action. Since then a period of 04 months has to be elapsed but no required information or record has still neither been received in the office of DHO/Rohini Zone nor such file returned back to the concerned zone while it is being a departmental case having same status of both the Page 3 of 8 retirees/Pensioners, so reason/reasons for not providing the required information may be reflected in black and white please.
(8):- In connection with question no.7, It seems that Zonal head of health department of City SPZ/MCD deliberately not providing the required information or record to the DHO/RZ even on the proper official demand which indicates towards the illegal financial benefits are being providing and also wants to be continued the same to Mr. Ravi Shankar Sharma Ex. AMO who is junior to the applicant? Please clarify and reply in black and white."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 16.03.2024 stating as under:
"1 This information can not be provided to third party as per RTI Act 2005 2 This question is not as per RTI Act 2005 3,4,5, 8 Please see the answer of question no 02.
6 Redressal of complaint does not came under the preview of RTI Act 2005.
7 File is under process at the part of ASO/PH/CSPZ"
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 21.05.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 29.10.2025 (copy marked to the Appellant) has been filed by Dy. Health Officer, City SP Zone which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"Sh. Ramesh Chandra had filed an application under RTI act 2005 in the City SP Zone on dated 15.02.2024 and which was received in the office of PIO/DHO/CSPZ on 19.02.2024 vide dairy No.403/DHO/CSPZ/2024. In this instant RTI application Sh. Ramesh Chandra Sough information regarding were based on his assumptions and are known specific reply of Page 4 of 8 above RTI was given by PIO/DHO/CSPZ vide letter No. DHO/CSPZ/2024/D-260 dated 16.03.2024. (Copy attached for reference) to the applicant. Sh. Ramesh Chandra (appellant) file the first appeal under RTI Act 2005 on dated 15.04.2024 at the first appellate Authority i.e Dy. Commissioner City SP Zone and first appellant Authority disposed of the first appeal of applicant on 21.05.2024. (Copy attached for reference) Notice of the second appeal received on dated 13.10.2025 in this regards it is submitted that PIO/DHO/CSPZ also sent copy of reply of second appeal to the appellate.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Sanjeev, JSA/APIO along with Shri Nishant Beniwal, APHI present in person.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 27.05.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
7. The Appellant while reiterating the contents of his RTI application pleaded that desired information has not been provided to him till date. He further stated that his junior is drawing more pay than him, therefore, to clarify the doubts he filed the RTI application seeking clarifications from the PIO. However, his doubts were not resolved by the replying Respondents. Hence, this Second Appeal before the Commission.
8. The Respondent submitted that the queries raised by the Appellant in the RTI application are clarificatory in nature which do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Despite this, efforts were made by the concerned the then PIO to provide point-wise reply to the Appellant. Further, the file regarding anomaly in pay fixation of Appellant is pending before ASO and this fact was duly informed to him in response to point No. 7 of RTI application initially. Decision:
9. The Commission based on perusal of the facts on record finds that the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the reply provided by the Respondent is bereft of merit as the queries raised by the Appellant in this RTI Application do not qualify the definition of "information" as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Page 5 of 8Despite this, the Respondents, with all his best efforts, furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant, which is in the spirit of the RTI Act.
10. 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.
11. 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)
12. 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 Page 6 of 8 taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied)
13. 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)
14. Having observed as above, no relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 7 of 8 Copy To:
The FAA, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, O/o The Deputy Commissioner, City SP Zone, 2nd Floor, Nigam Bhawan, Old Hindu College Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)