Central Information Commission
Partha Sarathi Panja vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 15 July, 2021
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/NITDP/A/2019/658179
Partha Sarathi Panja ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Institute of Technology
Durgapur, RTI Cell, Mahatama Gandhi
Avenue, Durgapur - 713209, West Bengal. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/07/2021
Date of Decision : 14/07/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/08/2019
CPIO replied on : 16/09/2019
First appeal filed on : 30/09/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 14/10/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28/11/2019
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.08.2019 seeking following information;
"1. At stated in NIT I Durgapur: office order NO NITD/per.Sec /4P-510 Dated 29.08.2012 (served me) about qualifying service and hen terms :
"lien period would be counted as qualifying service only on payment leave salary and penman contribution as payable under rule,"
2. As per letter No. NITD/Estt./4P-510/ 2015/1082 Dated September 11, 2015 (issued to me):
My Technical Resignation from the post of Technical Assistant has been accepted w.e.f. 01.09.2014.
3. NIT Durgapur has received leave salary contribution and pension contribution (as per mettle service terms) which were sent by CUJ, Ranchi on behalf of me during my lien period from 01.09.2012 to 31.08.2014. In view of the above facts kindly provide on the following information with certified copies of relevant rules, clarifications and explanations:
a) For the purpose of determination of my basic pension and pensionary benefits whether my lien period has been considered as qualifying service or not.
i) If yes, then how my basic pay and basic pension were fixed? My basic pay was Rs. 27510/- as on 31.08.12, the last day of attending my duties in NIT, Durgapur and Basic pay in CUJ on 01.09.14 (the date of acceptance of Technical resignation) was Rs. 33230/-
ii) If no, then the reason(s) behind it and also the reason(s) for which the pension for the period 01.09.2012 to 31.08.2014 was not given to me.
b) The basic pay of which date has been considered for my pensionary benefits and what the amount of Basic Pay has been considered?
c) If I would have put my Technical Resignation w.e.f. 01.09.2012 i.e. from the date of joining in another service, what would have been the amount of my basic pay and date of effect for my pensionary benefits.
d) If the basic pay and date of effect be same in case (b) and in case (c), then what was the purpose of receiving leave salary contribution and pension contribution by NIT Durgapur?
e) Whether Rule 33 (note 2), Rule 37(1) with explanation (ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and Government order No. F. No. 8-9/2008-TSI of MHRD (Deptt. of Higher Education) Dated 28th December 2011 is applicable to me or not?
i) If yes, then how these were applied to determine my basic pension and my pensionary benefits?2
ii) If no, then the causes of inapplicability of those rules.
f) What is the status of my application (along with attachments) dated 05.03.2019 with subject "less amount of pensionary benefits"? Whether it has been considered or not?
i) If my appeal has been considered then within which time period I can expect to have my dues with interest (as per pension rule)?
ii) If it has not been considered the cause(s) of inconsideration of the same."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 16.09.2019 stating as follows:-
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.09.2019. FAA's order dated 14.10.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal. In his Second Appeal the Appellant has also prayed the Commission to take necessary action regarding fixation of his basic pension.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.3
Respondent: Represented by Advocate Sandip Siker present through audio- conference.
The Commission at the outset apprised the Appellant that the information sought for by him is rather about seeking clarifications from the CPIO based on a hypothesis which do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act and in case of any dispute regarding his averred pension fixation, he should pursue his matter through administrative mechanism.
Per contra, the Advocate of the Respondent submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant in terms of RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information that has been sought for in the RTI Application as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon in terms of the RTI Act because the queries raised by the Appellant do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for clarifications and deductions to be provided based on a speculative query, yet the CPIO in his wisdom has informed the factual position to the Appellant in terms of RTI Act.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 4 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part 5 of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs. Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009] held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law.
Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) Also, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.5
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Moreover, the relief sought by the Appellant in his Second Appeal is in the nature of dispute resolution or seeking to redress an administrative grievance both of which are outside the scope of the adjudication of the Commission under the RTI Act.
It will be relevant here to refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016)dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the 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."
Emphasis Supplied While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any 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...." Emphasis Supplied 6 The Commission however empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advise him to pursue the matter through administrative mechanism for redressal of his grievance.
Now, to allay the apprehension of Appellant the limited scope of relief lies on point (f) of RTI Application for which the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide an updated status of action taken on averred representation free of cost to the Appellant. The said direction shall be complied by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7