Central Information Commission
Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 6 June, 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/DOP&T/A/2021/605608
Ajay Kumar Chaudhary ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Personnel &
Training, Estt.(D-II), RTI Cell,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
CPIO
Department of Personnel &
Training, Estt. (D), RTI Cell, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/04/2022
Date of Decision : 25/05/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13/07/2020
CPIO replied on : 04/08/2020
First appeal filed on : 27/08/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 09/11/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12/02/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 13.07.2020 seeking the following information:1
1. For grant of MACP benefits, DoPT vide O.M. dt.27/28.09.16, enforced Very Good benchmark wef. 25.07.16. U/s 4(1)(d) of the Act, inform (with supporting documents):
(A) (1) the reason, Delhi High Court (Circular No.107/E-9/Estt.-//DHC, dt.27.01.2018) allowed to implement it wef. 01.01.2018 instead of 25.07.16. (2) the reason, Delhi High Court allowed to enforce it from yr.2017-18 instead of yr.2016-17, (B) As MACP affects pensions and other entitlements, inform reason and also the Authy., under which UPSC and Deptt. of Legal Affairs, not consulted for modalities of benchmark for grant of MACP after implementation of 7th PC report, (B.1) inform details of official accountable for this negligence.
2. Pursuant to discussions in a National level JCM, as MACPS dated 19.05.2009 was modified vide O.M. dated 04.10.2012.
(A) In terms of para-3, pl. inform whether this modification was temporary or permanent (B) Inform the contents of para-17 after this modification & prior to dt. 27/28.09.16, (C) Provide details & a copy, of the Authy. under which O.Ms. on MACPS have the constitutional force of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. (C.1) provide a copy of the order containing criteria & procedure for amending these O.Ms. 2.1 Ignoring Modified MACPS, O.M. dated 27/28.09.16 enhanced MACP benchmark to Very Good for all the posts wef. 25.07.16. Since non-selection posts still exist and benchmark for promotion for G.P. 6600 and below (pre-revised) is lower than that of MACPS.
(A) /f modified MACPS still stands good, inform prescribed MACP benchmark for non-selection posts.
(B) If modified MACPS has been revoked:
(1) inform Authy. under which DoPT revoked it, (2) inform the rationale behind its revocation, (3) provide details & a copy, of the order of revocation, (4) inform details of JCM. (C) U/s 4(1)(c) of the Act, keeping in view the Modified MACPS, inform in tabular format, the pay-levels & prescribed benchmarks for grant of financial upgradations under MACPS to NON-SELECT/ON POSTS:
(1) after the dt.04.10.12 & prior to dt.28.09.16 and (2) after dt. 25.07.16 (3) provide copy of relevant orders at (1)&(2). (D) Whether DoPT/Govt. through this O.M. is empowered to alter the prescribed MACPS benchmark with retrospective effect, 2 (1) Inform the Authy. under which DoPT is empowered to enforce this ex-post facto order, (2) inform details of official accountable for revoking this unconstitutional order. 3. As enhanced promotion benchmark not implemented yet, (A) inform details of official responsible but failed to fix the time-limit for implementing this decision, (B) provide certified copy of the note-sheet indicating notings by various officials responsible for implementing it (C) approx. date of its implementation.
The CPIO, Estt.D-II replied to the appellant on 04.08.2020 stating as follows:-
"2. Under the RTI Act, only such information can be supplied which already exists and is held by the Public Authority. The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
3. However, the instructions/guidelines issued by this Department on the subject of MACP/ACP are available in public domain on the website of this Department viz. http://dopt.gov.in under the heading Notifications - OM & Orders4(13) Establishment+ ACP Scheme and you may refer O.M. dated 19.5.2009, 4.10.2012, 2B.9.2016, 22.10.2019 [Para 17(i), 17 (ii) of Annexure- I] may be referred for information and guidance. These instructions are implemented by the Administrative Ministry/Department which has the facts of the case/details of officers concerned. It may also be noted that in case clarifications are required, a proposal is required to be sent by the concerned Administrative Ministry/Department in terms of instructions contained in this Department's D.M. No. 43011 /9/2014-Estt.(D) dated 28.10.2015.
4. A copy of your RTI application has also been transferred [online] to US[Estt.D], DOFF for providing the available information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.08.2020. FAA's order dated 09.11.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
3The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Pradeep Kumar, US & CPIO along with Rakesh Kumar Sinha, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with regard to the amendments made in the MACPS.
The CPIOs reiterated the reply provided to the RTI Applications and emphasised that all instructions etc. related to MACP is available in the public domain.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and as well as from the statements of the Appellant during the hearing finds that the Appellant has not sought for any relief that is maintainable under the RTI Act. Even in the written submissions filed by him before the hearing, there is no reference to the subject of RTI Act, rather, the issue that has been harped upon is that the Respondents cannot amend modified MACPs or deny its benefits to applicants etc. Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4