Central Information Commission
Suneel Kumar Sharma vs Department Of Expenditure on 12 April, 2022
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/2021/608092
Suneel Kumar Sharma ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Expenditure,
(E.III.A) Branch, RTI Cell,
Room No. 45, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11/04/2021
Date of Decision : 11/04/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29/11/2020
CPIO replied on : 18/12/2020
First appeal filed on : 21/12/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 05/01/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.11.2020 seeking the following information:
1. DOE om F.no 4/21-2017-IC/E.IIIA dated 28.11,2019 regarding date of next increment under rule 10 which are applicable on promotion /financial upgradation 1 including upgradation under macp where pay is fixed under rule 13 CCS(RP) 2016 whether financial upgradation includes nonfunctional upgradation in level 9 (after 4 years of service from level 8) where pay fixation benefit under rule 13 ccs (rp) rules 2016 have been permitted.
2. Whether option to fix the pay under fr22(1)a(1) may be exercised or not for pay fixation of non- functional upgradation in level 9 (after 4 years of service from level 8) where pay fixation benefit under rule 13 ccs (rp) rules 2016 have been permitted.
3. Copy of OM F.No. 25-2/2017-IC/E.III(ii) dated 06.11.2020 deptt of expenditure, Min. of Finance related to non-functional grade (level 9) of Assistant Accounts Officer of Defence Accounts Department of Ministry of Defence.
4. Copy of OM F.No. 25-2/2017-IC/E.IIIA) dated 18.06.2018 deptt of expenditure; Min. of Finance related to non-functional grade (level 9) Assistant Account Officer/Assistant Audit Officer in IA & AD.
The CPIO furnished point wise reply to the appellant on 18.12.2020 stating as follows:-
"................RTI application No. DOEXP/R/E/20/01560 dated 29.11.2020 regarding eligibility of Q.M. No. 04-21/2017-IC/E.III.A dated 28.11.2019 in respect of financial up-gradation in Level-9 where pay fixation has been done as per Rule 13 of the CCS(RP) Rules, 2016, copy of O.M.s dated 18.06.2018 and 06.11.2020 both bearing No. 25-2/2017-IC/E.III.A.
2. With respect to the information sought in Points 1 and 2 of your RTI application, it is informed that the O.M. dated 28.11.2019 is self explanatory. For the information requested in Point No. 3 and 4 of the RTI application, a copy of the O.M. dated 18.06.2018 and 06.11.2020 is annexed herewith."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.12.2020. FAA's order dated 05.01.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Pravesh Kumar, US & CPIO present through video conference.2
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the CPIO on points 1 & 2 of the RTI Application.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant has been explained that the relevant OM is self-explanatory but he is insistent on the interpretation of the said OM.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of relief to be ordered at points 1 & 2 of the RTI Application. 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. In this regard, his 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) Having observed as above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4