Central Information Commission
G Palaniappan vs Department Of Pensions & Pensioners ... on 29 August, 2024
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/DP&PW/A/2023/649108
G Palaniappan ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Department of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 18.07.2023 FA : 17.08.2023 SA : Nil
CPIO : 11.08.2023 FAO : 05.09.2023 Hearing : 21.08.2024
Date of Decision: 27.08.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) DOT has denied VSNL employees the Combined service pension for the erstwhile govt servants with less than 10 years of govt service as on date of their permanent absorption in the PSU.
(ii) For the identically placed 2055 erstwhile govt servants in AAI, MoCA has sanctioned combined service pension.
There cannot be two different implementation of a govt OM else it will be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Page 1 of 5DoPPW is the competent authority on pension matters as per the powers vested in it by the President as per AoB Rules. Hence the following information is requested from DoPPW.
Which of the implementation of OM dated 5.7.1989 is as per the pension policies, whether in VSNL by DOT or in AAI by MoCA.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
At the outset, as per the provisions of RTI, Act, 2005 Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) is not supposed to create or to interpret or to solve the problems raised by the Applicant. The Act does not require the PIO/CPIO to do research on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and then supply to him. Further, CPIO is also not required to give his opinion or advice in any matter. Further, a copy of this Department OM dated 05.07.1989.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.08.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 05.09.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant was present through video conference and his representative Mr. Ujjwal, and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Sonika Khattar, Under Secretary and Mr. S Chakarbarti, Under Secretary, attended the hearing in person.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the queries raised by the appellant was clarificatory in nature. She further submitted that the respondent authority administers the pension policy in respect of Central Govt. Civilian employees only and implementation of such rules lies with the Ministry concerned. Mr. S Page 2 of 5 Chakarbarti, stated that Department of Telcom had informed them that in SLP (C) no. 10663/2016 filed by similar placed VSNL employees, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 15.03.2019 had dismissed the matter. A written submission of the respondent is reproduced as under:-
"2. The Appellant, G Palaniappan, had filed an online RTI Application bearing Reg. No. DP&PW/R/E/23/01099 dated 18.07.2023 and had sought information as to which of the implementation of DoPPW OM dated 05.07.1989 is as per the pension policies, whether in VSNL by DOT or in AAI by MOCA 3 An online reply dated 11.08.2023 was furnished to the Appellant by the then CPIO. DoPPW stating that at the outset, as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005, Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) is not supposed to create or to interpret or to solve the problems raised by the Applicant. The Act does not require the PIO/CPIO to do research on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and then supply to him. Further, CPIO is also not required to give his opinion or advice in any matter Further, a copy of this Department OM dated 05.07 1989 was enclosed by the CPIO with the reply.
4 The Appellant filed an online First Appeal (Reg no. DP&PW/A/E/23/00049) dated 17.08.2023 against the reply dated 11.08.2023 of the then CPIO. The First Appellate Authority considered the Appeal and found that whatever material information was available with the CPIO, the same has been furnished to the Appellant by the CPIO vide his online reply dated 11.08.2023 and OMs/Rules are self-explanatory. The Appellant was informed vide Order dated 05.09.2023 (copy enclosed).
5 Further, it is informed that Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare administers the pension policy in respect of Central Govt. Civilian employees only. The implementation of such rules/instructions etc., ies with administrative Ministry/Department Organisations of the employees covered by these rules.Page 3 of 5
6 It may also be informed that earlier, Department of Telecom had informed this Department that in SLP (C) No. 10663/2016 filed by similarly placed VSNL employees, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its judgement dated 15.03.2019 has already settled the matter (copy enclosed).
7 This CPIO humbly states that the Appeal/Complaint filed by Sh. G Palaniappan before the Hon'ble CIC, with respect of his RTI application dated 18.07.2023, is not maintainable."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 11.08.2023. The perusal of records further reveals that the appellant had sought some clarifications and opinion from the CPIO which may not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011 made the following observations:
"....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......."
9. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 27.08.2024
Page 4 of 5
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Nodal Officer (RTI Cell)
Department of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare
3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan,
Khan Market, New Delhi - 110003
2. G Palaniappan
Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)