Central Information Commission
Sukhninder Pal Singh Bajwa vs Food Corporation Of India on 4 July, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/FCIND/A/2018/149619
Sukhninder Pal Singh Bajwa ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, Food Corporation of ...प्रनतवािी /Respondent
India, Noida, UP.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 05.03.2018 FA : 10.04.2018 SA : 08.08.2018
CPIO : 19.03.2018 FAO : 11.05.2018 Hearing : 30.06.2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Food Corporation of India, Noida seeking information regarding allotment of his EPF/EPS number.
2. The CPIO responded on 19.03.2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 10.04.2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 11.05.2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Sukhninder Pal Singh Bajwa did not attend the hearing.
Mr. Krishanlal, DGM participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The respondent apprised this Commission that prior to introduction of EPS- 1995, a pension scheme namely Family Pension Scheme 1971(FPS-1971) was in vogue in the FCI. Later on, the appellant had moved an application for withdrawal Page 1 of 6 of EPS-1995 and accordingly, it was accepted by the competent authority on 13- 08-2005; therefore, he was not a member of EPS-1995. Hence, no deduction was made towards the pension (FPS-1971 or EPS-1995) from his salary during the service period. In view of this, he cannot now become a member of EPS-1995. In this regard, they have already given a reply to the appellant with reference to the RTI application vide their letters dated 19.03.2018 & 11.05.2018. The given replies were also read out by the respondent.
Decision:
5. Since the appellant is not present to attend the hearing, this Commission takes note of his averments put forth in the 2nd appeal wherein he has contended that the FPS/EPS number was not allotted to him during the entire service period of 35 years w.e.f. 18-12-1969 to 31-12-2004 despite the fact that regular contribution was deducted from his salary towards the CPF. In this regard, this Commission observes that only such information is required to be supplied under the RTI Act, 2005 which already exists and is held under control of the public authority. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the appellant. The appellant may have a grievance but the forum to address such grievance is surely not the CIC under the RTI Act, 2005.
6. As regards the grievance of the appellant regarding deductions from his salary towards the CPF, this Commission further observes that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna v. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal v. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 has held that the RTI Act, 2005 is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
7. Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in Review Petition [C] No.2309 OF 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No.210 of 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Namit Sharma, Review Petition [C] No. 2675 of 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No. 210 of 2012 has held as under:-
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any Page 2 of 6 public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:-
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat v. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 has held as under:-
"7. This Court is of the view that the CIC completely misdirected itself in proceedings to distinguish between a citizen, and a citizen who is a director of a company. A citizen is not required to give any reasons for the information sought from a public authority unless such information is otherwise exempt from disclosure and is available only if the information seeker satisfies the PIO/competent authority that such disclosure is in a larger public interest. No such consideration is involved in the information sought by the petitioner; thus, the CIC was required to only examine whether the denial of the information sought was justified as being exempt from disclosure under the Act.
8. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 has also pointed out that the CIC has further directed the EPFO "to report the Commission what action was initiated against the management for legal remedies including demand for damages for obstructing the proceedings of public authority and the result of Section 7C proceedings before 9th June, 2017." This is also wholly without jurisdiction."Page 3 of 6
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Govt. of NCT v. Rajendra Prasad, WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017 has held as under:-
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the W.P.(C) 10676/2016 Page 4 of 5 powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes. 7 . In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Shobha Vijender v. Chief Information Commissioner, W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2016 has held as under:-
"8. It is seen from the above that the scope of proceedings was somewhat expanded. As stated hereinabove, the scope of the proceedings before the CIC was limited to making a recommendation under Section 20(2) of the Act; however, notwithstanding the same, the CIC issued further directions such as directing the Chief Minister's Office to provide information about his initiatives pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 03.03.2016 and to take over all the pension schemes from Municipal Corporations. The said directions were clearly outside the scope of the appeal preferred by respondent no.5.
10. It is at once clear from the aforesaid directions that the same are wholly without jurisdiction and plainly outside the scope of the CIC's powers under the Act. The CIC is a statutory body constituted under Section 12 of the Act and has to perform its function and exercise its powers strictly in accordance with the Act. Its functions and powers are circumscribed by the provisions of the Act. Section 19 (8) - which is referred to by the CIC is limited to issuing directions for (a) requiring the public authority to take any Page 4 of 6 such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act; (b) requiring the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; (c) to impose any of the penalties provided under this Act; and (d) to reject the application made before it. Section 19(8) of the Act does not empower the CIC to issue any other directions except as specified therein. Clearly, the directions given by the CIC - to the Lieutenant Governor to take remedial measures to ensure strict compliance of eligibility norms in pension schemes and to obtain a comprehensive note on payment of pensions by three MCDs, and the order holding Area Municipal Counselors, their political parties and the Honorable Mayors to be accountable and responsible for following the norms prescribed for pensions are outside the ambit of Section 19(8) of the Act."
8. In light of the factual matrix of the case and the legal principles enunciated in the aforesaid case-laws, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the grievance of the appellant cannot be addressed under the RTI Act, 2005. Also, the respondent has already provided a specific factual reply to the appellant vide letters dated 19.03.2018 & 11.05.2018 thereby categorically indicating that he is not eligible for being member of the EPS-1995. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कुमार गु प्ता) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क / Date:-30.06.2020 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमाग), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Food Corporation of India, DGM(CPF), & CPIO, (CPG), Zonal Office (North), A-2A-2B, Sector-24, Noida, UP-201301.
2. Shri Sukhninder Pal Singh Bajwa, Page 6 of 6