Central Information Commission
Gyana Devi vs Border Security Force on 4 September, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2024/653887
Ms. Gyana Devi ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Border Security Force
Date of Hearing : 27.08.2025
Date of Decision : 27.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.07.2024
PIO replied on : 05.09.2024
First Appeal filed on : 17.09.2024
First Appellate Order on : 28.10.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.07.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"My humble request is that I Gyana Devi a family pensioner from your department. my husband late shri Amar Singh passed away on 17.03.2000. he was on the post of inspector, whose regimental no. 700011829. i am continuously receiving family pension my PPO no. 240550020253. Kindly provide the following information pertaining to my records
1. Please confirm whether I am receiving a medical allowance with my pension, and if so, specify the amount (per month)?
2. Please confirm whether I am getting medical facilities (CGHS or Others) instead of medical allowance?
3. During the preparation of my family pension documents, please specify which one medical allowance or a medical facility (such as CGHS or others) was provided ?
4. if any facility or allowance was provided us under point 3 than please provide us the concerning information and documents. (please provide photocopy )
5. if neither of the mentioned point 3 was not provided me than how much arrear (in rupees) i am eligible from document preparation till 30.06.2024 ?."
Page 1 The CPIO, Border Security Force vide letter dated 05.09.2024 replied as under:-
2. "It is to inform you that as per Section 24 of RTI Act-2005 read with its Second Schedule, Security organizations that includes the BSF, are exempted from providing any information under the said Act except in cases of the allegations of corruption or human rights violations. As such, the information sought by you cannot be furnished."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.09.2024. The FAA vide order dated 18.10.2024 stated as under:-
2. "उपरोक्त नवषयान्द्तगगत लेख है दक आपके आर०टी०आई० अनुरोध क्रमांक BSECF/R/E/24/00708 दिनांक 29 जुलाई 2024 का प्रनतउत्तर, लोक सूचना अनधकारी, क्षेत्रीय मुख्यालय सीमा सुरक्षा बल गुरिासपुर के पत्र संख्या स्था0 201/Estt SHQ GSP/RTI/2024/16849-51 दिनांक 05 नसतम्बर 2024 के तहत् पंजीकृ त डाक के माध्यम से प्रेनषत दकया जा चुका है तथा वतगमान में आपकी इस मुख्यालय में कोई भी यानचका नवचाराधीन / लनम्बत नहीं है।
3. इसके अलावा आपको सूनचत दकया जाता है दक सीमा सुरक्षा बल एक ऐसा संगठन है नजसको आर०टी०आई० अनधननयम - 2005 की नितीय अनुसूची में क्रम संख्या 9 पर रखा गया है, क्योंदक यह सगठन िेश की सुरक्षा से सम्बन्द्ध रखता है, इसनलए यह संगठन के वल भ्रष्टाचार तथा मानवानधकार उल्लंघन के आरोपों से सम्बनन्द्धत सूचना के अलावा अन्द्य सूचना िेने के नलए बाध्य नहीं है।"
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Not present Both the parties remained absent despite service of hearing notice.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Upon perusal of records of the case it is evident that the Respondent had sent an appropriate reply in terms of the provision of the RTI Act. Commission observes that the BSF is an organisation specified under the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and, accordingly, under Section 24 of Page 2 the RTI Act, the BSF is exempt from the rigours of the RTI Act. Commission notes that there is no material on record to show that there was any corruption or violation of human rights so as to bring the case of the Appellant within the ambit of the Proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)