Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Manisha vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 18 July, 2022

                                 के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली,
                               ली New Delhi - 110067

िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/MHOME/C/2021/607868

Ms. Manisha                                             ..िशकायतकता /Complainant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, US, Ministry of Home Affairs                       ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri Lalit Kappor, Deputy
Secretary, (Pers-II)/CPIO, MHA.

Date of Hearing                        :   18.07.2022
Date of Decision                       :   18.07.2022
Chief Information Commissioner         :   Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on               :   30.11.2020
PIO replied on                         :   08.12.2020
First Appeal filed on                  :   27.12.2020
First Appellate Order on               :   -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on        :   04.03.2021
Information sought

and background of the case:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 30.11.2020seeking information on the following 04 points:-

1. Please intimate the Name of Service of Group A executive Officers of CAPFs which were declared as Organised Group A Service (OGAS) vide MHA OM No. J-II-07/2018-SLP/Pers-II dated 04 July 2019.

2. If there is no Name of Service in respect of Group A executive Officers of CAPFs, please intimate whether any proposal to give a Name to the Service of Group A executive Officers of CAPFs is under progress in DoPT, in consequence to the MHA OM dated 04 July 2019 as quoted above in point no.1.

3. If the reply of point no. 2 is Yes, please intimate the proposed Name of Service of Group A executive Officers of CAPFs.

4. Please provide the attested copies of relevant note-sheet with reference to the Naming of Service of the Group A executive Officers of CAPFs, in Page 1 of 3 consequence to the MHA OM dated 04 July 2019 as quoted above in point no.1.

The CPIO/Dy. Secretary (Pers) vide letter dated 08.12.2020 replied as under:-

You are informed that, MHA vide OM No.J-II-07/2018-SLP/Pers.II dated 04/07/2019 has granted OGAS status to Group 'A' Executive officers of CAPFs and consequential benefits of NFFU w.e.f. 01/01/2006 and NFSG @ 30% of Senior Duty Post (SDP) w.e.f. 06/06/2000 as per DoPT guidelines dated 24/04/2009 and 06/06/2000 respectively and subsequent instructions thereon.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 08.07.2022, stating that requisite information was furnished to the Complainant vide CPIO's reply dated 08.12.2020. Furthermore, the Complainant had filed an online First Appeal which was duly processed and the Complainant was informed by the FAA vide order dated 26.07.2021, that there is no information available in the records of CPIO Pers -II Desk, relating to naming of service of Group A Executive Officers of CAPFs declared as OGAS. As regards to question whether there is any proposal for naming of service, the Complainant was informed that this does not fall under the category of information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

Hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present for the virtual hearing, while the Complainant has not attended the hearing nor communicated any reason for her absence despite service of hearing notice in advance. The Respondent - Shri Lalit Kappor, Deputy Secretary, (Pers-II)/CPIO, MHA reiterated the averments made in written submission and submitted that requisite information has been duly furnished to the Complainant within stipulated time period.

Decision:

Perusal of the records of the case reveals the PIO has duly replied to the RTI application of the Complainant. The instant case is a Complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, where the Commission is only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with any malafide intention or without any reasonable cause by the Respondent. Since, the records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information, there appears no malafide nor cause of action which would necessitate action under provisions of the Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005.

In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further direction is necessary in this case. Therefore, the Complaint is dismissed as such.

वाई.

                                                                        वाई. के . िस हा)
                                                         Y. K. Sinha (वाई         िस हा

Chief Information Commissioner((मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3