Central Information Commission
Dr Pramod Kumar vs Border Security Force on 6 May, 2020
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2020/662424
Dr. Pramod Kumar, ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
Directorate General,
Border Security Force,
(Admn. Directorate)
Block No. 10, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003
Date of Hearing : 05.05.2020
Date of Decision : 06.05.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.03.2019
PIO replied on : 05.06.2019
First Appeal filed on : 10.05.2019
First Appellate Order on : 22.08.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 14.01.2020
ORDER
The captioned appeal emanates from RTI application dated 29.03.2019whereby the Appellant has sought the following information:
1. What is the meaning of Level of officers to grant TA, DA, LTC, Telephone allowance, brief case allowance, Newspaper allowance, transport allowance, air travel and other allowances.
2. Allowances as given above in Para-1 are granted as per pay level of officer in pay matrix as given by 7th CPC or as per rank structures existing in BSF like Commandants, DIG, IG.
3. What is the meaning of joint secretary and equivalent level. Does it means equivalents pay level 14 in pay matrix table as given by 7 th CPC or any other thing to grant pay allowances equal to joint secretary. And etc. Since no response was received within the stipulated timeframe, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 10.05.2019.
The Respondent PIO vide his reply dated 05.06.2019 provided point-wise information to the Appellant. The First Appellate Authority vide his order dated 22.08.2019 reiterated the reply of the PIO.
Being aggrieved as dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission in the instant Second Appeal.
The foremost contentious point which thus arises is of the maintainability of the present appeal. Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 lays that:
24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.-
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
The Respondent public authority is enlisted in Second Schedule of the RTI Act and as such, exempt from provisions of this Act. The only exception carved out to the rule is wherein information sought relates to allegations of corruption/human rights violations and approval to disclosure is accorded by this Commission.
Thus, the present RTI request must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, the information sought must relate to allegations of corruption / human rights violations and the same must not be barred under various exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
Proceedings during the hearing:
Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and he stated that initially the RTI Application was filed with Ministry of Home Affairs which was subsequently transferred to the Directorate General Border Security Force vide letter dated 03.04.2019. He explained that information has been provided by the DIG(Admn)/PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, Administration Directorate on 05.06.2019 on point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI Application whereas on remaining points, the RTI Application was forwarded to concerned PIOs of Personnel Directorate and Medical Directorate.
Upon being asked, he stated that Commandant(Med) & Staff Officer/PIO vide his reply dated 29.07.2019 intimated the Appellant that para no. 5 of the RTI Application pertains to them and that the information sought therein is exempt from disclosure under Section 24 of the RTI Act. He added that no information from Personnel Directorate has been received by him till date.
Decision:
On the basis of the arguments of the Appellant during audio conferencing, Commission observes that the primary contention of the Appellant is that albeit he is drawing the salary equivalent to Joint Secretary level, he is not receiving any perks and amenities such as TA, DA, LTC, telephone allowance, brief case allowance etc. Upon perusal of the documents on record, Commission observes that the DIG(Med) & Appellate Authority vide his detailed Order dated 13.09.2019 has stated, which has been reproduced verbatim as under:
"5. And whereas, with regard to appellant contention, this office does not fall under section 24 of the RTI Act 2005 read with schedule II and is part of MHA, it is to informed that, although this office look after the medical matters of all CAPFs, NSG & AR but it is placed under the strength of ITBP vide restructuring order dated 02-09-2004 and is consists of combatised officers and staff of CAPFs & AR. The same has already been decided by Central Information Commission in an earlier matter No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003455 dated 06 September 2013. DACP scheme for Medical officer of CAPFs and processing the proposal are part of responsibility of the ADG (Med) office and these are service matters of CAPFs as of the ITBP, BSF, CRPF etc individually and thus are the act related to Central Armed Police Forces and covered under exempted category. Since section 24 specifically exempted the departments mentioned in schedule II of the Act, therefore applicability of section 8 does not arise at all......."
In addition, Commission also relies on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Director General and Anr vs. Harender: WP(C) 5959 of 2013 decided on 16.09.2013, wherein it was held that:
"4..... No violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc.' The foregoing ratio of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court squarely applies to the instant case. Hence, Commission is of the considered opinion that although the Appellant seems to have a grievance pertaining to his service matter, the Commission is not in a position to provide any relief.
Nonetheless, the Appellant has not made any specific allegation of corruption and/or human rights violation; hence, the instant Second Appeal is disposed off with no further directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभितसत्याभितप्रभत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514