Central Information Commission
Anil Kumar Pandey vs North Eastern Railway (Gorakhpur) on 12 December, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NERLG/A/2018/123482
Anil Kumar Pandey ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/O. Railways, North ... ितवादी /Respondent
Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 05-02-2018 FA : 27-03-2018 SA: 13-04-2018
CPIO : 23-02-2018 FAO : 04-04-2018 Hearing: 06-12-2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur seeking information regarding the rules, guidelines, etc. governing his pay fixation at a lower level, after serving for nearly 8 years on regular service, as compared to other similarly situated employees.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, and informed that it does not fall under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act vide reply dated 23.02.2018, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 27-03-2018 requesting that the information sought should be provided to him. The first appellate authority enclosed the copy of Indian Railway Establishment Code with his order dated 04.04.2018. The appellant filed a second appeal dated 13.04.2018 u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act Page 1 of 4 before the Commission on the ground that the information sought for has not been provided by the CPIO.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey was present in person. Mr. Gopul Prasad Gupta, SPO(HQ), participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant submitted that he had sought copy of the rule pertaining to his pay fixation by the respondent, and the same was not provided to him. He further stated that he had served for around 8years in the department on regular basis, and his pay has not been fixed by the department at par with other similarly situated employees.
5. The respondent informed the Commission that they have already furnished the information sought for with reference to the RTI application as available in their records to the appellant. He further submitted that the copy of the Indian Railway Establishment Code governing the pay fixation of the appellant as available on their record has been provided to the appellant by the FAA vide its order dated 04.04.2018. He stated that nothing remains to be further provided to the appellant. He stated that the appellant has raised his queries in the RTI application in the form of queries, and the same pertains to resolution of grievances, which cannot be sought under the RTI Act.
Decision:
6. This Commission observed that due information, as available in records, has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 04.04.2018, enclosing the Indian Railway Establishment Code, by virtue of which the pay fixation of the appellant took place. At the outset it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act. The Commission observes that the copy of the rule, guideline, etc. governing the pay fixation of the appellant has been provided to him, and the reasons for not fixing his pay with other similarly situated employees is in the form of grievances and outside the purview of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, "Information means any material in any form, including records, Page 2 of 4 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 Commission notes that 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. The Commission observes that the information as available on record has been provided by the respondent to the appellant. Hence, no further intervention is required.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 06-12-2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, M/O. Railways, DGM (G)/Nodal PIO, North Eastern Railway, RTI Cell, GM's Office, HQ, Gorakhpur, UP-273012.
2. Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey Page 4 of 4