Central Information Commission
Mr.C K Saseendran vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 27 June, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/001807
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 27 June 2012
Date of decision : 27 June 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri C K Saseendran,
Aashraya, B17, Third Cross,
Anugraha Layout, Opp. Kristal Citrine
Apartment, Kodigrhalli, Hoodi Bangaluru
- 560 048.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Department of Personnel &
Training, North Block,
New Delhi.
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Smt. Zoya C.B., US was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra The Appellant was present in the Bangalore studio of the NIC while the Respondent was present in our chamber. We heard their submissions.
2. The Appellant had sought a number of information regarding the basis for grant of CCL to a woman government servant for taking care of children upto 18 years of age. Besides, he had also wanted to know about the action taken on his letter dated 29th of September 2010 addressed to the Secretary of the DoPT on the same subject. The CPIO had observed that some of his queries were hypothetical in nature and that she was not obliged to respond to CIC/SM/A/2011/001807 such queries. However, she had also extracted the relevant recommendation of the sixth pay commission on the subject which the government had accepted and which formed the basis of this decision. The Appellate Authority had endorsed the response of the CPIO.
3. The Appellant argued that the response of the CPIO was not very convincing or adequate. He submitted that it had not been made clear why the government chose to accept 18 years as the limit for treating anyone as a child. The respondent submitted that she had already informed whatever was there in the government file and that she could not guess if there was any other basis for deciding the upper age of a child for grant of CCL. After carefully considering the facts of the case, we too tend to agree with the respondent. Under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the CPIO is expected to provide only that information which exists in any government record or file; she is not expected to create or guess any information. If the recommendation of the sixth pay commission is the only basis for deciding on the age criteria for the CCL, the CPIO cannot help. She has truthfully communicated the relevant extracts from the sixth pay commission report as available in the government file. Needless to say, if the Appellant finds the basis of the decision unacceptable, he is free to raise this before any competent forum including a court of law. There cannot be any solution of this under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
4. There remains only one item of information which has not been given. That relates to the action taken on his letter to the Secretary. The respondent admitted that it was not given inadvertently and that she would provide this information very soon. We direct her to send the information on the action taken on the letter of the Appellant within five working days of receiving this order. If there is a file noting or any other record showing the disposal of the said letter, CIC/SM/A/2011/001807 the CPIO shall enclose a copy of that with her communication.
5. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2011/001807