Central Information Commission
Mina Lahiri vs Controller General Of Defence Accounts ... on 18 April, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/CGDAC/A/2022/128847
In the matter of
Mina Lahiri
... Appellant
VS
1. CPIO
Defence Accounts Deptt. (DAD) Headquarters,
Ulan Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt. - 110010
2. CPIO,
Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
6th Floor, Block A, Defence Offices Complex,
Africa Avenue Marg, New Delhi - 110023
3. CPIO,
Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Air Force),
Dehradun, 107, Rajpur Road,
Dehradun Uttarakhand 248001
... Respondents
RTI application filed on : 21/02/2022 CPIO replied on : 23/03/2022 First appeal filed on : 31/03/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 04/05/2022 Second Appeal filed on : 13/06/2022 Date of Hearing : 18/04/2023 Date of Decision : 18/04/2023 The following were present:
Appellant: Joydeep Lahiri, Representative, present over VC Respondent: Ashish Kumar, Accounts officer and CPIO Delhi; Neeraj Kumar, Senior Accounts Officer and CPIO Dehradun, present over VC 1 Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Whether uniformity is maintained by all sub offices, under CGDA, on pay matters?
2. A reference is made to OM no: 11-1t2016/7th CPC/Part. ll(B) dated 14th November 2019 on "Admissibility of Special Allowance/qualification Pay for Accounts cadre - revision of rates as per 7th CPC". Whether the said allowance is allowed in all the sub offices or not? lf not, then provide reason for the same.
3. Whether individuals who have been promoted between 01/01/2016 and 01/07/2016 in all the offices are given the opportunity to exercise option under FR22 (1)(a)(1) and join 7th CPC from date of next increment (DNI) or not? If not then, provide the reason behind it.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant's representative submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply. The CPIO Delhi reiterated the written submissions dated 17.04.2023. The CPIO Dehradun reiterated the written submissions dated 13.04.2023. Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 23.03.2022 provided a point-wise reply to the appellant. The FAA disposed of the appeal on 04.05.2022 and held that there were no grounds of appeal by the appellant to contest the reply of the CPIO. The appellant's second appeal also lacks any ground and therefore, the representative was asked to explain and specify points, to which he submitted that the information sought is whether rules were followed while fixation of pay was done. The Commission observed that information sought is mostly interrogatory and not covered under Sec 2(f) of the RTI Act.2
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no scope for providing any relief to the appellant. Both the CPIOs shall send a copy of the written submissions dated 13.04.2023 and 17.04.2023 to the appellant within 3 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन सरना) सरना सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3