Central Information Commission
A Krishnan vs Tata Institute Of Social Sciences on 30 August, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/TISSM/A/2023/146670
A Krishnan ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Tata Institute of Social
Science, Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 22.02.2023 FA : 30.03.2023 SA : 20.11.2023
CPIO : 31.05.2023 FAO : 23.08.2023 Hearing : 28.08.2024
Date of Decision: 30.08.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2023 seeking information on the following points: -
(i) A certified copy of the proposal to promote me to the post of Assistant Manager (Publication) on an Ad-hoc basis in the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800/-and Grade Pay of Rs. 5400, with the approval of the competent authority, and the working sheet for fixing my pay on the date of my joining the post.
(ii) A certified copy of the proposal to place me in the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800/-
with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 (First ACP), with the approval of the competent authority, and the working sheet for fixing my pay as on 23/03/2007.
Page 1 of 4(iii) A certified copy of the proposal to revise my grade Pay from Rs.5400 to Rs.
4,800 with the approval of the competent authority, and the working sheet for fixing my basic pay w.e.f. 23/03/2007 and the gross pension w.e.f. may, 2011.
(iv) A certified copy of, or an abstract of the Recruitment Rules (direct appointment and promotion) for the post of Assistant Manager (Publications), with the Pay scales/Pay band.
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.03.2023.
3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 31.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"Point (i) to (iv) - It appears from RTI application of Applicant that he is seeking information pertaining to his own service records and per records, the Applicant retired from this Public Authority i.e. TISS on 30 April 2011. Hence, as per departmental practice the information sought may be already available from the applicant in his personal capacity & it is no Public Information" with respect to him.
Further, the RTI applicant failed to show any larger public interest in seeking said information. Hence, the RTI application is not maintainable."
4. The FAA's order dated 23.08.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.11.2023.
5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Prayansh Singh, Legal Officer and Mr. Shahjeet, CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought certain information from the PIO, about his Pay Band and Grade Pay, as nearly, 10 (Ten) years after his retirement on superannuation, the TISS informed him that the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- was wrongly granted to him. But before intimating TISS had already started deductions from his monthly pension. He explained that the proposals and approvals for promoting any Page 2 of 4 employee are always kept under the control of the respective department of TISS. Once an employee gets a letter of promotion, no employee ask TISS for giving the copies of proposal and approval for his promotion. Same thing happened in the Appellant's case also. When he was promoted, he received the letter of promotion and got the revised salary also. So, there was no need to ask for any document from the TISS as to how he was promoted. He claimed that as far as the larger public interest is concerned, it is his own case, TISS has illegally deducted some amount from his monthly pension and hence he averred that he is legally entitled to get the related documents/information from TISS.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the decisions of the competent authority was communicated to the Appellant at the relevant time. The information sought by the Appellant consists of the names of the pension approval officers which are barred to be shared as per the provisions of the RTI Act. When queried by the Commission regarding furnishing the information after redacting the third-party details, the Respondent agreed to follow the procedure laid down under section 10 of the RTI Act.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the information pertains to Appellant's own service records. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to furnish the aforesaid information to the Appellant after due application of Section 8 r/w Section 10(1) of the RTI Act 2005, i.e. using the severability clause, which permits withholding of certain portion of the information. The said information should be shared with the Appellant, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The CPIO is further directed that while complying with the directions of the Commission, all the personal information/identifying particulars of third parties, if any, should be adequately redacted/blackened out. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 30.08.2024
Page 3 of 4
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act, 2005)
Tata Institute of Social
Sciences, V N Purav Marg,
Deonar, Mumbai- 400088
2. A Krishnan
Page 4 of 4
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)