Central Information Commission
Santosh Bagali vs Central Reserve Police Force on 9 June, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CRPFO/A/2024/140019
Shri Santosh Bagali ... अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Central Reserve Police Force ...प्रततिादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.06.2025
Date of Decision : 06.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.05.2024
PIO replied on : 26.06.2024
First Appeal filed on : 25.07.2024
First Appellate Order on : 24.08.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 12.12.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
1. PENSION CALCULATION:- AS AND WHEN WE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE 7TH PAY COMISSION, WHICH WAS NOT AMENDED IN MY FATHER PENSION IN YEAR 2022, FROM THAT TIME WE HAD BEEN ASKING THE PESNION CALCULATION FROM MARCH-2003 TO OCT-2022. BUT EVERY TIME IN REPLY WE ARE GETTING PPO DETAILS ONLY, WHICH WE ARE ALREADY AWARE. NOW RECENTLY THE CRPF OFFICER WHO HAD VISITED MY HOUSE IN MY NATIVE, HAD GIVEN ME DETAIL OF ONE FAMILY (SHAHEED HC/GD A.G PATHER 44 BN), FORCE #680291233), WHOSE HUSBAND WAS EXPIRED IN YEAR 1988. SHE (PENSIONER-WIFE) IS GETTING PENSION OF AMOUNT OF RS. 33,000/- APROX AT PRESENT. WHERE AS MY BROTHER WAS EXPIRED IN YEAR 2003 AND LAST PENSION WAS Rs. 17,000/- APPROX. IN YEAR 2022. NOW IN SIMPLE WORDS PLEASE CONFIRM ME WHETHER THE PENSION AMOUNT WHICH MY PARENTS WERE GETTING WAS CORRECT OR WRONG.
2. FAMILY WELFARE ASSOCIATION CWA:- PLEASE NOTE FROM MOBILE # 8076469389 ON 21ST MARCH 2024 I RECEIVED A CALL FROM LADY OFFICER SAYING THAT DG MAM NEEDS TO SPEAK TO ME IN EVENING TIME AROUND 18:00 HRS. BASED ON HER INSTRUCTION I SAT IN FRONT ON MY MOBILE FOR ALMOST TWO AND HALF HOURS, BUT DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY CALL, AFTER SOME TIME I CALL BACK THAT LADY OFFICER AND UPDATE HER THE SITUATION. AFTER CROSSCHECKING SHE CONFIRMS US THAT SINCE OUR CASE IS STILL UNDER Page 1 of 5 ONGOING PROCESS, MAM WILL NOT CALL ME. ALL THESE DETAILS WE HAD SENT VIA MAIL FROM MAIL IS SUNIL [email protected] TO [email protected] ON 5TH APRIL, 2024. HOPE AFTER GOING THROUGH THE MAIL, PLESE CLEAR MY QUERY REGARDING THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBLITIES OF CWA TEAM IN CASES LIKE MY PARENTS AND MINE.
3. OPERATIONAL CASUALITY CERTIFICATE: PLEASE NOTE MY BROTHER WAS EXPIRED IN YEAR 2003, BUT THIS CERTIFICATES WERE (10 COPIES) ISSUED TO US IN YEAR 2019, THAT TOO WITH WRONG NAME. WITH NAME CORRECTION AGAIN THIS CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED TO US IN YEAR 2022. PLEASE CONFIRM WHY DID YOUR OFFICE TOOK SO MUCH TIME TO ISSUE THE CERITFICATES, SINCE MY BROTHER WAS EXPIRED IN YEAR 2003. ALSO NOTE TILL DATE NO ONE FROM CRPF HAS GIVEN THE INFORMATION, THAT WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF THESE 10 CERTIFICATES. THESE DOUBTS WERE ASKING BY US WHEN MY FATHER WAS ALIVE. PLEASE CLARIFY.
4. FAMILY RECORDS IN CRPF :- IN MY PREVIOUS RTI I HAD INFORMED YOUR OFFICE THAT, MY MOTHER AND ELDER BROTHER RELATION IN CRPF FILE RECORD IT IS SHOWN AS WIFE AND HUSBAND, INSTEAD OF MOTHER AND SON.
THIS SAME MISTAKE IS REPEATED IN DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK WELFARE AND RESETTLEMENT, VIJAYAPUR OFFICE. NOW DUE TO THIS MAJOR MISTAKE MY PARENTS DID NOT GOT KARNATAKA STATE BENEFITS, WHO IS GOING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY OF IT. WHEN MY FATHER WAS ALIVE, FEW LETTERS WERE DRAFTED FROM CRPF TO DC OFFICE VIJAYAPURA TO PROVIDE STATE BENEFITS, BUT NO SENIOR CRPF OFFICER VISITED DC OFFICE TO CONVIENCE THEM THAT IN PAST THESE MISTAKES HAD HAPPENED AND NEEDS PROVIDE JUSTICE TO THIS FAMILY. NOW WHEN MY FATHER IS EXPIRED, NEITHER DC OFFICE OR TEHSILDAR OFFICE IS HEARING OUR REQUEST. SIR, IF YOU STUDY THE CASE THROUGHLY, HOW SMARTLY EACH AND EVERY DEPARTMENT TRYING TO ESCAPE FROM THE MISTAKES. ANY HOW I NEED YOUR JUDGEMENT ON THIS ISSUE.
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age 2 of 5 6TH PAY COMMISSION WE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY SUCH REQUEST FROM YOUR OFFICE, THEN WHY THIS HAPPENED IN 7TH PAY COMMISSION. A----P-3-07/2003-36 BN LETTER SENT ON DATED 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 B----P-III-792003-PEN-36 BN LETTER SENT ON DATED 13TH OCTOBER, 2022
6. WITH REF TO LETTER NO.RF-53/2003-24-F/F (F/P) LETTER SENT BY GC CRPF YELAHANKA ON DATED 24TH FEB-2024, SAYING THAT DIG SIR HAS GIVEN APPROVAL TO MEET HIM TO DISCUSS ON RISK FUND ISSUE. WITH THIS LETTER STATEMENT YOU CAN IMAGINE SIR, HOW MUCH DIFFICULTY WE HAD FACED TO MEET CRPF OFFICERS FOR GETTING JUSTICE. IN SHORT IT IS PROVED THAT WE NEED SUCH LETTERS TO MEET RESPECTIVE OFFICER. PLEASE CLARIFY ON IT SIR.
7. WITH REF TO LETTER NO.A.VI.15/2023-RECTT-DA-9 LETTER SENT BY DG CRPF DELHI OFFICE ON DATED 8TH FEB-2023. SIR IN BRIEF DC OFFICE VIJAYAPURA HAD SENT LETTER TO DG DELHI OFFICE ON MARCH 2022. NOW THE LETTER REFERENCE #WHICH I HAVE GIVEN, HAD RECEIVED IN YEAR MARCH-2024 IN MY NATIVE. HOW COME THIS OFFICE IS MENTIONING DATE OF YEAR 2023. FOR THIS WE HAD EVEN SENT MAIL FROM MAIL ID SUNIL [email protected], BUT TILL DATE NO REPLY FOR IT. PLEASE CLARIFY ON IT SIR. Etc.."
The CPIO, Central Reserve Police Force, Bihar vide letter dated 26.06.2024 replied as under:-
2. Information as asked by you vide your RTI application under reference is related to Family Pension. Operation Casualty Certificate, Family Records, 6 th & 7th CPC Pension Revision. Risk Fund Amount, State Benefits, Compassionate Appointment admissible to NOK etc. In this connection, it is to inform you that as per provision contained in section 24(1) of Right to Information Act, 2005, Central Police Forces as listed in Second Schedule at serial No.10 of this Act, have been exempted from giving such information except the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and Human Right Violations.
3. Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegation of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission. As such, we are unable to furnish the information as desired/asked by you.
4. However, information as asked by you can be asked by means of general correspondence.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 24.08.2024 held as under:-
2. "As per provisions contained in section 24(1) of Right to Information Act, 2005, Central Police Forces as listed in Second Schedule at Serial No.10 of this Act, have been exempted from giving such information except the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and Human Right Violations. The aforesaid facts have already been intimated to you by the DIG/CPIO, GC, CRPF, Mokamaghat vide letter No. R.XIII-01/2024-EC-II dated 26/06/2024. However, it has been stated by you in application dated 25/07/2024 that you have received a letter bearing No. R.XIII.01/2024-EC-II dated 26/06/2024 from the DIG, GC, CRPF, Mokamaghat, but, the same is not sent to your e-mail ID [email protected]. In this context it may please be appreciated that letter in question has already been received by you.
3. Moreover, information as sought by you vide the above appeal has already been provided to you by IG KKS through their e-mail ID [email protected] dtd 10/04/2023 to your e-mail ID [email protected] and GC, CRPF, Yelahanka, Page 3 of 5 Bengaluru, Karnataka vide office letter No. M.V.I/2024-GC BLR-EC-IV dated 28/06/2024."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 29.05.2025 has been received from the Appellant which has been duly taken on record.
The Department of Sainik Welfare & Resettlement, Government of Karnataka has submitted a letter dated 20.05.2025 which had been sent to the Appellant clearly informing him that married brother is not eligible for compassionate appointment. The CPIO, CRPF, Mokamaghat, Patna has also submitted written submission dated 30.05.2025 reiterating the above facts, which has also been duly taken on record.
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar represented the Appellant Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh - Commandant-CRPF, New Delhi was present during hearing.
Shri Vikas Kiran - Dy. Commandant, CRPF, Bengaluru and Shri Subroto Mitra - Assistant Commandant, Ministry-Patna were present through video conference during hearing.
Both parties are heard through video conference and reiterated their respective contentions. The Respondent stated that response from available records as well as in terms of the RTI Act had been duly provided to the Appellant. While the Department of Sainik Welfare & Resettlement, Government of Karnataka had provided complete information addressing the queries raised by the Appellant, the CPIO, CRPF had denied information citing the provision of Section 24 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Upon considering the facts of the aforementioned appeal, the Commission notes that the response sent by the Respondent is appropriate and suffers from no legal infirmity, in so far as the RTI Act is concerned. In the given circumstances, since appropriate response has already been sent to the Appellant, no further intervention is required in this case under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणत सत्यावपत प्रतत) Page 4 of 5 S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)