Central Information Commission
Rajnish Ratnakar vs Ministry Of Women & Child Development on 14 January, 2026
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. . (As Per Annexure)
Rajnish Ratnakar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Ministry of Women &
Child Development, New ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First Appeal FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Order Appeal
1. 635389 21.04.2024 11.06.2024 25.05.2024 01.07.2024 Nil
2. 637249 16.04.2024 29.05.2024 30.05.2024 20.06.2024 Nil
3. 622213 30.07.2024 21.08.2024 22.08.2024 17.09.2024 Nil
4. 649703 04.09.2024 10.09.2024 10.09.2024 Not on Nil
Record
5. 649736 11.07.2024 28.08.2024 28.08.2024 22.10.2024 Nil
6. 654600 11.09.2024 19.11.2024 09.11.2024 28.11.2024 Nil
7. 657101 30.10.2024 05.12.2024 06.12.2024 18.12.2024 Nil
8. 622381 01.01.2025 31.01.2025 06.02.20205 03.03.2025 Nil
9. 643729 11.06.2025 29.07.2025 31.07.2025 29.09.2025 Nil
10. 643731 12.06.2025 29.07.2025 31.07.2025 29.08.2025 Nil
Page 1 of 38
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 13.01.2026
Date of Decision: 13.01.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/635389
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Whether Ms Jyotika Has Been Appointed Pgo In My Public Grievance After Receiving Of My Two RTI Application, Bearing Registration Number Mowcd/R/E/23/01204 And Mowcd/R/E/23/01205 And Whether She Has Been Assigned Responciblity Of Faa In This Section Propr To Filing Of My Rti Application. Why Ms Arkaja Das Has Refused To Perform The Role Of Pgo In This Public Grievance And Who Have Appointed Ms Jyotika As Pgo In This Public Grievance.
2. Why Ms Aditi Das Rout Has Refused To Perform The Role Of First Appealate Authority In My Appeal And When Ms Pallavi Aggrawal Has Been Appointed First Appealate Authority In This Appeal And Who Has Appointed Her First Appealate Authority.
3. Whether Pgo ,Fisrt Appealate Authority Under Public Grievance Redressal Act Is Public Servant Or Not And If Public Servants Acts Contrary To Law And Act ,They Are Liable To Be Punished Under Section 166 ,166a And 167 Of Indian Penal Code Or Not.
4. Whether Cpio Ms Janaki Vishwanathan Has Commited Offence Of Violation Of Rti Act 2005 Or Not In My Abovementioned Two RTI Applications By Not Providing Me The Information That Information Has Been Received By Pgo Shri Sukh Meena And Nodal Officer Ms Pallavi Aggrawal Or Not And CPIO Is A Public Servant Or Not Page 2 of 38
5. Whether CPIO Can Be Punished Under Sec 166 ,166a And 167 Of Indian Penal Code For Disobeying As A Public Servant Mandate Of Right To Information Act 2005 And For The Offence Of Deriliction Of Their Official Duty As A Public Servant CPIO ) Under RTI Act 2005 Or Not.
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Point No. 1 & 2. According to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, information in the form of "why," "how," "what," etc., shall not be created to respond to an applicant's query unless the answer already exists in material form. Point No. 3 to 5. Points raised in the RTI application do not come under the purview of this CPIO. Applicant is requested to kindly make an application to the PIO Concerned directly.
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 01.07.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
1.4. A written submission dated 12.01.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"Reference is invited to the above-mentioned CIC Notice in which CPIO of this Ministry is directed to appear before Hon'ble Information Commissioner on 13/01/2026 at 11.00 AM in the matter of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar in respect of online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/E/24/00473 dated 21/04/2024 and online 1 Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/24/00073, dated 25/05/2024.
2. In this regard, submission of CPIO (CD Bureau) of this Ministry is as under: -
Page 3 of 38As per records available in the CD Bureau of this Ministry, the online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/E/24/00473 dated 21/04/2024 of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar was received in the online account of former CPIO (CD Bureau) on the same date and a reply was provided to the applicant on 10/06/2024 (Annexure-1) The 1 Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/24/00073, dated 25/05/2024was received on the same date and appeal was disposed of by the then 1st Appellate Authority on 28/06/2024 that information provided in r/o above said online RTI matter, as per records available and as per provision contained in the RTI Act. (Annexure-II).
The Hon'ble CIC in the case of Rananjay Pratap Singh vs Chief Commissioner of Custom bearing case File No CIC/CCCAZ/A/2022/660038, vide decision dated 23/05/2023 has held that "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."
iv Further, it is worthwhile to mention here that the applicant is in the habit of filing several RTI applications, public grievances and complaints in Ministry on similar issues concerning benefit of gratuity, minimum wages, regularization service of Anganwadi Second Appeal No. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/637249
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:Page 4 of 38
(1)Whether PGO Ms Jyotika Has Gone Through The Norms Of Educational Qualifications For These Anganwadi Teachers Fixed By The NCTE In These 100 Days Or Not Before Deciding My Public Grievance.
(2) Whether Ms Jyotika Is A Public Servant Or Not.
(3) If She Has Not Gone Through The NCTE Guidelines Before Deciding My Public Grievance Than In That Case She Has Commited Offence Under Section 166,166a And 167 Of Indian Penal Code Or Not (I Am Reproducing These Relevant Sections Of IPC 1860 For Your Ready Reference.) (A) Sec 166 Of IPC : Whoever Being A Public Servant , Knowingly Disobeys Any Directions Of The Law As To The Way In Which He Is To Conduct Himself As Such Public Servant ,Intending To Cause ,Or Knowing It To Be Likely That He Will By Such Disobediance, Cause Injury To Any Person ,Shall Be Punished With Simple Imprisonment For A Term Which May Extend To One Year Or With Fine ,Or With Both.
(B) Sec 166 A : Whoever Being A Public Servant - ( A ) Knowingly Disobeys Any Direction Of The Law Which Prohibits Him From Requiring The Attendance At Any Person For The Purpose Of Investigation Into An Offence Or Any Matter ,Or ( B ) Knowingly Disobeys , To The Prejudice Of Any Person, Any Other Direction Of The Law Regulating The Manner In Which He Shall Conduct Such Investigation , Shall Be Punished With Rigorous Imprisonment For A Term Which Shall Not Be Less Than Six Months But Which May Extend To Two Years And Shall Be Liable To Fine .
(C) Sec 167 Of IPC : Public Servant Framing An Incorrect Document With Intent To Cause Injury : Whoever Being A Public Servant , And Being ,As Such Public Servant, Charged With Preparation Or Translation Of Any Document Or Electronic Record, Frames, Prepares Or Translates That Document Or Electronic Records In A Manner Which He Knows Or Believes To Be Incorrect , Intending Thereby To Cause Injury To Any person, Shall Be Punished With Imprisonment Of Either Description For A Term Which May Extend To Three Years ,Or With Fine Or With Both.
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Point No. (1) According to Section 2(f) of the RT Act, 2005, information in the form of "why," "how," "what," etc., shanot be created to respond to an applicant's query unless the answer already exists in material form. Point No. (2) The information required does not fall within the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. (3 A&B) The information required does not fall within the purview of Ministry of Women and Child Development.Page 5 of 38
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 20.06.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
2.4. A written submission dated 12.01.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..Reference is invited to the above-mentioned CIC Notice in which CPIO of this Ministry is directed to appear before Hon'ble Information Commissioner on 13/01/2026 at 11.10 AM. in the matter of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar in respect of online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/T/24/00188, dated 16/04/2024 and online 1 Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/24/00083, dated 30/05/2024 2 In this regard, submission of CPIO (CD Bureau) of this Ministry is as under:
- As per records available in the CD Bureau of this Ministry, the online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/T/24/00188, dated 16/04/2024 of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar was received in the online account of former CPIO (CD Bureau) on the same date and a reply was provided to the applicant on 29/05/2024 (Annexure-1).
The 1 Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/24/00083, dated 30/05/2024 was received on the same date and appeal was disposed of by the then 1 Appellate Authority on 20/06/2024 by the then 1 Appellate Authority (CD Bureau) that the appropriate information provided in r/o above said online RTI matter as per records available and as per provision contained in the RTI Act (Annexurell).Page 6 of 38
The Hon'ble CIC in the case of Rananjay Pratap Singh vs Chief Commissioner of Custom bearing case File No CIC/CCCAZ/A/2022/660038, vide decision dated 23/05/2023 has held that "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 V Further, it is worthwhile to mention here that the applicant is in the habit of filing several RTI applications, public grievances and complaints in Ministry on similar issues concerning benefit of gratuity, minimum wages, regularization service of Anganwadi workers etc. The applicant has filed 50 RTI applications since last year (April 2023), 24 RTI appeals & 2 Public Grievances since September 2023, a statement in this regard is attached as Annexure (II In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC 497] has observed that 37. xxxxx The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony amount its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public Page 7 of 38 authorities prioritizing information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
It is also submitted that Hon'ble CIC in the case of Rajnish Ratnakar Vs Ministry of Women and Child Development vide decision dated 25.11.24 on the appeal bearing file No CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/649463 has advised the appellant and observed as under-
In view of the above-said observations, the Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future instead of making it a fool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority.
3 It is submitted that RTI and 1st Appeal of the appellant has already been replied by the CPIO and 1st Appellate Authority of the Ministry of WCD, with available information.
4. In view of the above, it is prayed to the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner that a decision may be taken as per the facts and circumstances of the case
5. It is also requested that the CPIO is not able to attend the hearing due to some urgent Official work, therefore, Ms. Janaki Viswanathan, Under Secretary (CD Bureau) has been authorized to attend the hearing before the Hon'ble CIC on the schedule date and time."
Second Appeal No. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/642213
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. whether deputy secretary of MOWCD Ms Jyotika possess law degree which has been mandated by supreme court of india in its judgement dated 13th September 2012 in the matter of Namit Sharma versus union of India to become FAA in any public authority Page 8 of 38
2. Who was the appointing authority who appointed her FAA, kindly provide me complete details of the appointing authority
3. When she was appointed FAA
4. When she was appointed as public grievance officer in the department and who was the appointing authority
5. Whether earlier FAA ms Arkaja das pssess law degree to be appointed as FAA earlier in this office or not.
3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Point (1) No. Point (2 to 4) The requisite information is not available under the jurisdiction of CPIO & US (Personnel Admin), MWCD and hence may be treated as NIL The requisite information may perhaps be available with CPIO (RTI Cell) of MWCD. Therefore, RTI application is separately forwarded to RTI Cell of MWCD.
Point (5) No. 3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 17.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
3.4. A written submission dated 09.01.2026 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Second Appeal No. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/649703
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Whether CVO Of MOWCD, GOI Has Received This Enclosed Complaint Number 60820/2024 Forwarded By CVC For Necessary Action Or Not .If It Has Page 9 of 38 Already Been Received Than Kindly From Me Date Of Receipt Of This Complaint Also
2. What Is The Prescribed Time Limit To Conclude The Investigation And Take Necessary Action Accrding To CVC Act 2003 And Rules And Guidelines Framed By CIC In This Matter
3. Whether CVO Of MOWCD ,GOI Is Public Servant Under Definition Of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita 2023 And Prevention Of Corruption Act 1988 Or Not
4. Whether This Is Direction Ov CVC Under Complaint Handling Policy That Outcome Of Investication Report Shall Be Uploaded By CVO Directly On The Official Webportal Of CVC Or Not After Completion Of Investigation Of The Forwarded Complaint.
4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The application is being transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the concerned CPIO of Ministry of Women and Child Development to provide relevant information directly to the applicant."
4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading.
4.3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/649736
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(1)Whether The Secretary of Ministry of Labour has gone troperly through The Abovementioned Judgement Or Not before denying These Honorary Workers Benefits of ESI Act 1948 And EPF And MP Act 1852 At that time.
(2) Whether the Supreme Court has decided ebtertainment of case in Administrative Tribunal in its judgement or decided that honorary workers are not employees and hence not entitled for the benefits of any social security legislation.Page 10 of 38
(3) Whether Honorable Supreme Court Of India In Its Judgement Dated 25th April 2022 In Maniben Mangan Bhai Bhariya Case Has Held These Honorary Worker Employees And Also Held Them Entitled For Benefits Of Social Security Legislation Of Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 Or Not (4) If mistake has been committed by the then Secretary of Ministry of Labour And Employment ,Govt of India , Then It is Duty of Present Secretary Maam to Revoke this Letter after Passing Of Judgement Of Honorable Supreme Court In Maniben Case or Not.
(5) Whether Secretary Mam Of Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Govt of India has Written Letters To Secretary Of Women And Child Development, Govt of India To Provide These Honorary Workers Benefits Of EPF And MP Act 1952 And ESI Act 1948 Even Now to do Justice With These Poor And Marginalized Citizens Of This Nation.
5.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Point 1 to 5. The information sought does not pertain to the Ministry of Women & Child Development.
5.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.10.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5.3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5.4. A written submission dated 12.01.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..Reference is invited to the above-mentioned CIC Notice in which CPIO of this Ministry is directed to appear before Hon'ble Information Commissioner on 13/01/2026 at 11:40 AM in the matter of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar in respect of online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/T/24/00366 dated 11/07/2024 and online 1st Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/24/00124, dated 28/08/2024 Page 11 of 38 2 In this regard, submission of CPIO (CD Bureau) of this Ministry is as under: -
L As per records available in the CD Bureau of this Ministry, the online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/T/24/00366 dated 11/07/2024 of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar was received in the online account of former CPIO (CD Bureau) on the same date and a reply was provided to the applicant on 27/08/2024 (Annexure-I) The 1 Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/24/00124, dated 28/08/2024 was received and appeal was disposed of on 21/10/2024 by the then 1 Appellate Authority informing that the reply in r/o Paint No 28 3 of above said online RTI matter had already been provided in the similar RTI applications Nos MOWCD/R/E/24/00460 and MOWCD/R/E/24/00452 (Annexure). (Annexure-II).
The Hon'ble CIC in the case of Rananjay Pratap Singh vs Chief Commissioner of Custom bearing case File No CIC/CCCAZ/A/2022/660038, vide decision dated 23/05/2023 has held that "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"
IV Further, it is worthwhile to mention here that the applicant is in the habit of filing several RTI applications, public grievances and complaints in Ministry on similar issues concerning benefit of gratuity, minimum wages, regularization service of Anganwadi workers etc. The applicant has filed 50 RTI applications since Page 12 of 38 last year (April 2023), 24 RTI appeals & 2 Public Grievances since September 2023, a statement in this regard is attached as Annexure III V In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr Vs Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC 497) has observed that 37 xxxxx The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony amount its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties VI It is also submitted that Hon'ble CIC in the case of Rajnish Ratnakar Vs. Ministry of Women and Child Development vide decision dated 25.11.24 on the appeal bearing file No CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/649463 has advised the appellant and observed as under: -
"In view of the above-said observations, the Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future instead of making it a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority.."
3 It is submitted that RTI and 1st Appeal of the appellant has already been replied by the CPIO and 1st Appellate Authority of the Ministry of WCD, with available information.
Page 13 of 384 In view of the above, it is prayed to the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner that a decision may be taken as per the facts and circumstances of the case
5. It is also requested that the CPIO is not able to attend the hearing due to some urgent Official work, therefore, Ms. Janaki Viswanathan, Under Secretary (CD Bureau) has been authorized to attend the hearing before the Hon'ble CIC on the schedule date and time..."
Second Appeal No. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/654600
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(1) Whether guidance have been given to GNCTD so that honorary anganwadi workers and helpers can be given benefits of payment of gratuity act 1972 immediately or not (2) If guidelines has already been given to GNCTD then provide me the copy of guidance also (3) If guidelines has not been given yet then provide me the reason behind it because section 4 d of RTI act 2005 provided that administrative officials shall provide reasons of their action which affect common citizens of this nation (4) Whether employees shall be given benefits of EPF and MP act 1952 according to EPF AND MP ACT 1952 itself or it will be decided by policy of any government overriding the main act.
6.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.11.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Point 1 to 4) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has pronounced its judgment dated 25.04.2022 given in the matter of Civil Appeal No. (S) 3153 of 2022 (@SLP (Civil) No.30193 of 2017)-Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya Vs District Development Officer Dahod & Others. wherein the directions for granting benefits of gratuity to Anganwadi Workers/Anganwadi Helpers are for the State Government of Gujarat.
As per the judgement, onus is on the state government.
6.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.11.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false Page 14 of 38 and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 28.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
6.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
6.4 A written submission dated 12.01.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..Reference is invited to the above-mentioned CIC Notice in which CPIO of this Ministry is directed to appear before Hon'ble Information Commissioner on 13/01/2026 at 11.50 AM in the matter of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar in respect of online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/E/24/01058 dated 11.09.2024 and online 1st Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/24/00165, dated 19/11/2024 2 In this regard, submission of CPIO (CD Bureau) of this Ministry is as under-
As per records available in the CD Bureau of this Ministry, the online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/E/24/01058 dated 11.09.2024 of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar was received in the online account of former CPIO (CD Bureau) on the same date and a reply was provided to the applicant on 19/11/2024 (Annexure-1) The 1 Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/24/00165, dated 19/11/2024was received on the same date and appeal was disposed of by the then 1st Appellate Authority on 28/11/2024 that information was provided based on available records and jurisdiction. (Annexure-II). The Hon'ble CIC in the case of Rananjay Pratap Singh vs Chief Commissioner of Custom bearing case File No CIC/CCCAZ/A/2022/560038, vide decision dated 23/05/2023 has held that "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 Page 15 of 38 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"
IV Further, it is worthwhile to mention here that the applicant is in the habit of filing several RTI applications, public grievances and complaints in Ministry on similar issues concerning benefit of gratuity, minimum wages, regularization service of Anganwadi workers etc. The applicant has filed 50 RTI applications since last year (April 2023), 24 RTI appeals & 2 Public Grievances since September 2023, a statement in this regard is attached as Annexure III V In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC 497] has observed that 37 xxxxx The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony amount its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing information furnishing, at the cost of their normal and regular duties. vi It is also submitted that Hon'ble CIC in the case of Rajnish Ratnakar Vs Ministry of Women and Child Development vide decision dated 25.11.24 on the appeal bearing file No CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/649463 has advised the appellant and observed as under
"..In view of the above-said observations, the Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act Page 16 of 38 in future instead of making it a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority."
3 It is submitted that RTI and 1st Appeal of the appellant has already been replied by the CPIO and 1st Appellate Authority of the Ministry of WCD, with available information.
4. In view of the above, it is prayed to the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner that a decision may be taken as per the facts and circumstances of the case.
5 It is also requested that the CPIO is not able to attend the hearing due to some urgent Official work, therefore, Ms. Janaki Vishwanathan, Under Secretary (CD Bureau) has been authorized to attend the hearing before the Hon'ble CIC on the schedule date and time.."
Second Appeal No. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/657101
7. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Kindly Provide me Information that which Advocate Represented Ministry of Women And Child Development Govt Of India Before High Of Of Tripura In The Matter Of Smt Bina Rani Paul And Others Versus The State Of Tripura And Others Writ Petition Civil Number 624 Of 2023 Which Is Also Annexed For Ready Reference
2. Kindly Provide Me Information That Tripura High Court Has Decided This Writ Petition In Favour Or Honorary Anganwadi Workers And Helpers Relying Upon Supreme Court Of India Judgement Dated 25th April 2022 In Maniben Case Or Not Under Article 141 Of Our Indian Constitution
3. Kindly Provide Me Information That In This Judgement It Has Been Noticed Or Not That Jodhpur Bench Of Rajasthan High Court Has Given Entiled Honorary Anganwadi Workers For The Benefits Of Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 In The Matter Of Smt Shant Devi Versus State And Others Vide Its Order Dated 9th November 2022
4. Kindly Provide Me Information That Now It Has Been Established Or Not That All 25 Lakhs Honorary Anganwadi Workers And Helpers Are Also Entitled For Benefits Of Gratuity Act 1972 In The Light Of Article 141 Of Indian Page 17 of 38 Constitution And Maniben Judgement Of Supreme Court Of India Dated 25th April 2022 Or Not.
7.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.12.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Point 1 to 4. The information sought does not come under the purview of RTI Act 2005. Regarding the Advocate represented the Ministry in the said matter before High Court of Tripura, the name of the Advocates of the parties are mentioned in the Judgement. Further the interpretation of the judgement does not under the purview of CPIO.
7.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.12.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.12.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
7.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
7.4. A written submission dated 12.01.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..Reference is invited to the above-mentioned CIC Notice in which CPIO of this Ministry is directed to appear before Hon'ble Information Commissioner on 13/01/2026 at 12.00 PM in the matter of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar in respect of online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/E/24/01269 dated-30.10.2024 and online 1st Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/24/00172, dated 06/12/2024.
2. In this regard, submission of CPIO (CD Bureau) of this Ministry is as under: -
As per records available in the CD Bureau of this Ministry, the online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/E/24/01269 dated- 30.10.2024 of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar was received in the online account of Page 18 of 38 CPIO (CD Bureau) on the same date and a reply was provided to the applicant on 05/12/2024 (Annexure-1) The 1 Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/24/00172, dated 06/12/2024 was received on the same date and appeal was disposed of by the then 1st Appellate Authority on 18/12/2024 that appropriate information sought in respect of above said online RTI application had been provided as per records available and as per provision contained in the RTI Act (Annexure-II).
The Hon'ble CIC in the case of Rananjay Pratap Singh vs Chief Commissioner of Custom bearing case File No CIC/CCCAZ/A/2022/660038, vide decision dated 23/05/2023 has held that "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"
IV Further, it is worthwhile to mention here that the applicant is in the habit of filing several RTI applications, public grievances and complaints in Ministry on similar issues concerning benefit of gratuity, minimum wages, regularization service of Anganwadi workers etc. The applicant has filed 50 RTI applications since last year (April 2023), 24 RTI appeals & 2 Public Grievances since September 2023, a statement in this regard is attached as Annexure III V In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC 497) has observed that 37. xxxxx The Act should not be Page 19 of 38 allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony amount its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing information furnishing, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
VI It is also submitted that Hon'ble CIC in the case of Rajnish Ratnakar Vs. Ministry of Women and Child Developmentvide decision dated 25.11.24 on the appeal bearing file No. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/649463 has advised the appellant and observed as under -
In view of the above said observations, the Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future instead of making it a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority."
3. It is submitted that RTI and 1st Appeal of the appellant has already been replied by the CPIO and 1st Appellate Authority of the Ministry of WCD, with available information
4. In view of the above, it is prayed to the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner that a decision may be taken as per the facts and circumstances of the case 5 It is also requested that the CPIO is not able to attend the hearing due to some urgent Official work, therefore, Ms. Janaki Viswanathan, Under Secretary (CD Bureau) has been authorized to attend the hearing before the Hon'ble CIC on the schedule date and time..."
Page 20 of 38Second Appeal No. CIC/MOWCD/A/2025/622381
8. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.01.2025 seeking information on the following points:
(1) Whether it is duty of public authority of MOWCD under sub section 1b of section 4 of RTI act 2005 to implement the judgement of honorable supreme court of India and various high court or not (2) Kindly provide me information that this duty has been assigned to which public servant in the public authority of MOWCD and what is the norms made and channels of supervision and accountability under sub section 1b iii and iv of section 4 of RTI act to ensure judgement of supreme court of India and other high courts by MOWCD (3) Kindly provide me information that which public servant is responsible for implementing article 141 of Indian constitution and judgement of supreme given in maniben manganbhai bhariya versus district department officer dahod dated 25th April 2022 (4) Kindly provide me information which public servant is responsible to implement Tripura high court judgement in the matter of BINA RANI PAUL in which high court held all these honorary workers entitled for benefits of gratuity act 1972 in the light of article 141 and supreme judgement in maniben case (5) Kindly provide me information about the steps and measures taken by that public servant over both these judgement to implement maniben judgement with all 25 lakhs honorary workers and helpers working in entire nation including tripura also.
8.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 31.01.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Point 1 to 5. According to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, information in the form of "why." "how," "what," etc., shall not be created to respond to an applicant's query unless the answer already exists in material form. According to O.M. No. 1/32/2013-IR dated 28/11/2023 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Page 21 of 38 the CPIO is required to provide information that is available, existing. and either held by or under the control of the public authority. The Public Information Officer is not obligated to generate or create information that is not part of the records of the public authority.
8.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.02.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 03.03.2025 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
8.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
8.4. A written submission dated 12.01.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..Reference is invited to the above-mentioned CIC Notice in which CPIO of this Ministry is directed to appear before Hon'ble Information Commissioner on 13/01/2026 at 12.10 PM. in the matter of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar in respect of online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/E/25/00003 dated 01/01/2025 and online 1 Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/25/00018, dated 06/02/2025 2 In this regard, submission of CPIO (CD Bureau) of this Ministry is as under -
1. As per records available in the CD Bureau of this Ministry, the online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/E/25/00003 dated 01/01/2025 of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar was received in the online account of CPIO (CD Bureau) on the same date and a reply was provided to the applicant on 31/01/2025 (Annexure-I).
11 The 1 Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/25/00018, dated 06/02/2025 was received on the same date and appeal was disposed of by the then 1 Appellate Authority on 03/03/2025 that appropriate information provided in rio above said online RTI matter in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Page 22 of 38 Act, 2005, and as per-instructions on RTI matter as contained in DoPT O M. No. 1/32/2013 IR dated 28/11/2023 (Annexure-11).
The Hon'ble CIC in the case of Rananjay Pratap Singh vs Chief Commissioner of Custom bearing case File No CIC/CCCAZ/A/2022/660038, vide decision dated 23/05/2023 has held that "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.
IV. Further, it is worthwhile to mention here that the applicant is in the habit of filing several RTI applications, public grievances and complaints in Ministry on similar issues concerning benefit of gratuity, minimum wages, regularization service of Anganwadi workers etc. The applicant has filed 50 RTI applications since last year (April 2023), 24 RTI appeals & 2 Public Grievances since September 2023, a statement in this regard is attached as Annexure III V In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC 497 has observed that 37. xxxxx The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony amount its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing information furnishing, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.Page 23 of 38
VI It is also submitted that Hon'ble CIC in the case of Rajnish Ratnakar Vs Ministry of Women and Child Development vide decision dated 25.11.24 on the appeal bearing file No CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/649463 has advised the appellant and observed as under "In view of the above-said observations, the Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future instead of making it a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority.."
3 It is submitted that RTI and 1st Appeal of the appellant has already been replied by the CPIO and 1st Appellate Authority of the Ministry of WCD, with available information.
4. In view of the above, it is prayed to the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner that a decision may be taken as per the facts and circumstances of the case 5 It is also requested that the CPIO is not able to attend the hearing due to some urgent Official work, therefore, Ms Janaki Viswanathan, Under Secretary (CD Bureau) has been authorized to attend the hearing before the Hon'ble CIC on the schedule date and time.."
Second Appeal No. CIC/MOWCD/A/2025/643729
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.06.2025 seeking information on the following points:
1. ".. Legal Opinion Details:
- Provide a certified copy of the legal opinion received by MoWCD referred to in the reply dated 02.06.2025 concerning the gratuity entitlements of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers.
-Name, designation, and authority of the officer or legal entity who provided the said opinion.Page 24 of 38
-Provide the file noting(s) and correspondence through which this opinion was sought and approved.
2. Ministry's Role and Policy-Making Authority:
-Whether MoWCD acknowledges that schemes like ICDS, Saksham Anganwadi & Poshan 2.0 are centrally sponsored and hence must comply with central social security laws, including the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
- If MoWCD has any constitutional or statutory authority to formulate policies that override or bypass social security legislations enacted by Parliament.
3. Responsibility as Employer-in-Part:
- Since the Central Government pays a share of the honorarium/wages, clarify whether the MoWCD accepts partial employer responsibility under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
-Provide all documents, notings, and communications related to this consideration.
4. Doctrine of Parity and Supreme Court Compliance:
- Provide details of steps taken by MoWCD to ensure uniform compliance with the Maniben M. Bhariya judgment across all States/UTs.
- Provide file notes or actions taken to ensure parity for all 25 lakh Anganwadi Workers and Helpers under Article 14 and the Supreme Court judgment.
5. Proactive Disclosure under Section 4(1)(b)(ii) -(iv):
Provide documents showing how the Ministry has fulfilled its obligations under Section 4(1)(b)(ii), (iii), and (iv) of the RTI Act, particularly relating to:
- The decision-making process regarding gratuity,
- The norms and rules under which such decisions are made,
- The procedures followed in the discharge of MoWCD's functions as a central nodal authority for these schemes.
6. ..., etc./ other related information.."
9.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.07.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-Page 25 of 38
"..Point 1. Such information is in fiduciary relationship of a person and cannot be shared under RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 2 and 3 The information sought, being in the nature of an opinion/ advice/interpretation, which does not come under the definition of 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) is required to provide information as available on record.The CPIO is not obligated to interpret.."
9.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.07.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 29.09.2025 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
9.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
9.4. A written submission dated 12.01.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..Reference is invited to the above-mentioned CIC Notice in which CPIO of this Ministry is directed to appear before Hon'ble Information Commissioner on 13/01/2026 at 12.20 PM. in the matter of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar in respect of online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/E/25/00833, dated 11/06/2025 and online 1 Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/25/00100, dated 31/07/2025 2 In this regard, submission of CPIO (CD Bureau) of this Ministry is as under.
-
1. As per records available in the CD Bureau of this Ministry, the online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/E/25/00833, dated 11/06/2025 of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar was received in the online account of former CPIO (CD Bureau) on the same date and a reply was provided to the applicant on 29/07/2025 (Annexure-l) Page 26 of 38 ii.The 1" Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/25/00100, dated 31/07/2025 was received on the same date and appeal was disposed of by the then 1st Appellate Authority on 29/08/2025 that information provided in rio online RTI matter as per available records under the RTI Act and delay occurred in providing reply due to administrative reasons (Annexure-II).
The Hon'ble CIC in the case of Rananjay Pratap Singh vs Chief Commissioner of Custom bearing case File No CIC/CCCAZ/A/2022/660038, vide decision dated 23/05/2023 has held that "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."
iv. Further, it is worthwhile to mention here that the applicant is in the habit of filing several RTI applications, public grievances and complaints in Ministry on similar issues concerning benefit of gratuity, minimum wages, regularization service of Anganwad.."i Second Appeal No. CIC/MOWCD/A/2025/643731
10. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.06.2025 seeking information on the following points:
1. Authority and Liability
(a) Whether the Ministry of Women and Child Development considers Anganwadi Workers and Helpers as covered employees under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
(b) Whether the Ministry accepts any financial or legal liability for gratuity payments to these workers.
Page 27 of 38(c) If not, kindly provide a copy of the legal opinion or file noting on which this conclusion has been based.
2. Funding Pattern
(a) Please provide details of the Centre's share in the honorarium of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers under the ICDS scheme.
(b) If the Centre contributes to the honorarium, then why does it not contribute to the gratuity, which is calculated based on honorarium?
3. Maternity Leave Policy
(a) Under which authority or provision did the Ministry grant 180 days of maternity leave to Anganwadi Workers and Helpers across India?
(b) Please provide a copy of the relevant office order granting this leave.
(c) Was this benefit centrally funded or left to be borne by the State Governments?
4. Supreme Court Judgment Implementation
(a) What steps have been taken by the Ministry to implement the Supreme Court's decision in Maniben Maganbhai Bharatiya vs District Development Officer & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3150 of 2017, regarding payment of gratuity?
(b) Has any advisory or directive been issued to State Governments or ICDS implementing agencies in this regard? If yes, kindly provide a copy.
5. Consistency in Social Security Benefits
(a) Does the Ministry accept the principle that statutory social security benefits (like maternity leave and gratuity) should be applied uniformly to all similarly placed Anganwadi Workers and Helpers across India?
(b) If not, provide reasons and supporting legal basis for any differential treatment.
10.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.07.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Page 28 of 38Point 1. The information sought by the applicant does not come under the purview of the RTI Act 2005.
Point 2. (a)As per the scheme guidelines of Saksham Anganwadi and Poshan 2.0 the Tunding pattern is as follows:-
50:40 (States/UTs with Legislature), 90:10 (NE States & Himalayan States) 00:00 (UT without legislative)
b) Remaining information does not come under the purview of RTI Act, 2005.
Point 3. The relevant guidelines dated 09.07.2010 are enclosed herewith.
Point 4. (a) As per scheme guidelines, AWWS/AWHS are honorary worker who come forward from local community to render their service voluntary. They are paid honorarium as decided by Government by time to time.
However, by the judgment dated 25/04/2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed the concerned authorities of State Government of Gujarat to extend the benefits of gratuity to the eligible AWWs/AWH as they are engaged by the respective state Govt.
(b) No. Point 5. The information sought by the applicant does not come under the purview of the RTI Act 2005.
10.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.07.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 29.08.2025 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
10.3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied , the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
10.4. A written submission dated 26.12.2025 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
10.5. A written submission dated 12.01.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
Page 29 of 38"..Reference is invited to the above-mentioned CIC Notice in which CPIO of this Ministry is directed to appear before Hon'ble Information Commissioner on 13/01/2026 at 12.30 PM in the matter of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar in respect of online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/E/25/00845, dated 12/06/2025 and online 1 Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/25/00101, dated 31/07/2025 2 In this regard, submission of CPIO (CI) Bureau) of this Ministry is as under: -
L As per records available in the CD Bureau of this Ministry, the online RTI application bearing registration number MOWCD/R/E/25/00845, dated 12/06/2025 of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar was received in the online account of former CPIO (CD Bureau) on the same date and a reply was provided to the applicant on 29/07/2025 (Annexure-l).
The 1 Appeal bearing registration number MOWCD/A/E/25/00101 dated 31/07/2025 was received on the same date and appeal was disposed of by the then 1 Appellate Authority on 29/08/2025 that information provided in r/o online RTI matter as per available records under the RTI Act and delay occurred in providing reply due to administrative reasons (Annexure-II).
The Hon'ble CIC in the case of Rananjay Pratap Singh vs Chief Commissioner of Custom bearing case File No CIC/CCCAZ/A/2022/660038, vide decision dated 23/05/2023 has held that "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."
IV. Further, it is worthwhile to mention here that the applicant is in the habit of filing several RTI applications, public grievances and complaints in Ministry on Page 30 of 38 similar issues concerning benefit of gratuity, minimum wages, regularization service of Anganwadi workers etc. The applicant has filed 50 RTI applications since last year (April 2023), 24 RTI appeals & 2 Public Grievances since September 2023, a statement in this regard is attached as Annexure III In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr Vs Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC 497] has observed that 37. xxxxx The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony amount its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing information furnishing, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
Vi It is also submitted that Hon'ble CIC in the case of Rajnish Ratnakar Vs Ministry of Women and Child Development vide decision dated 25. 11.24 on the appeal bearing file No. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/649463 has advised the appellant and observed as under-
In view of the above-said observations, the Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future instead of making it a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority.."
3 It is submitted that RTI and 1st Appeal of the appellant has already been replied by the CPIO and 1st Appellate Authority of the Ministry of WCD, with available information.
Page 31 of 384. In view of the above, it is prayed to the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner that a decision may be taken as per the facts and circumstances of the case 5 It is also requested that the CPIO is not able to attend the hearing due to some urgent Official work, therefore, Ms. Janaki Viswanathan, Under Secretary (CD Bureau) has been authorized to attend the hearing before the Hon'ble CIC on the schedule date and time.."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Ms. Janaki Vishwanath, US, Shri Shamsher Singh, Legal Consultant, Shri Manjit Singh, SO, Shri Aujendra Singh, Director/CPIO, Shri S.B. Pandey, Shri Anurag Kumar, Shri Rajneesh Mohan Singh, Director, Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, US, Shri Ajeet Kumar, JS, Shri A.K. Mishra, SO- participated in the hearing.
11. The Respondent submitted that all information available in their official records has been duly provided to the Appellant in accordance with the documents maintained in their records. They further clarified that the queries raised by the Appellant predominantly pertain to the policy and procedural aspects relating to the payment of gratuity to Anganwadi workers/helpers.
12. The Respondent averred that, as per the scheme guidelines, Anganwadi workers and helpers are honorary workers who voluntarily come forward from the local community to provide essential services in the field of child development, nutrition, and early education. They are not regular government employees and, in recognition of their service, receive an honorarium, the amount of which is determined and revised by the Government from time to time. The Respondent emphasized that the payment of gratuity to such workers was not initially contemplated under the scheme, as they are considered voluntary or honorary personnel.Page 32 of 38
13. However, the Respondent noted that by the judgment dated 25.04.2022 in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya vs District Development Officer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has issued a direction to the concerned authorities of the State Government of Gujarat to extend the benefits of gratuity to eligible Anganwadi workers/helpers. The Court recognized that, although Anganwadi workers/helpers perform voluntary services, they are engaged and administered by the State Government and, therefore, are entitled to statutory benefits under the applicable legal provisions. The Respondent clarified that this directive aligns with the Government's obligation to ensure that eligible workers receive their due benefits and that necessary steps are being taken for the welfare of Anganwadi workers/helpers. Shri Aujender Singh, Director/CPIO placed on record copy of reply dated 09.01.2026 in reference to File No. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/642213 which has been already provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
14. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Commission notes that 'information' as defined in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority. Furthermore, the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is confined to providing information as available in the official records. It does not extend to drawing deductions, conclusions, or inferences therefrom.
Expanding its interpretation to include such obligations would impose an undue and unreasonable burden on the CPIO and may expose them to potential penalties for any perceived error in interpretation. It is settled position that the CPIO's responsibility is strictly limited to furnishing information as maintained in the records.
15. A reference in this regard can be made to 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:
Page 33 of 38"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 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 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
16. Having considered the above, the Commission is of the view that the Respondent Public Authority has already discharged their duties by furnishing the available information and forwarding the same to the Appellant. No further intervention is warranted in the instant matters under the RTI Act.
17. Notwithstanding above, the Commission notes that the Appellant has been filing multiple RTI applications and appeals seeking overlapping, repetitive or vague queries, many of which pertain to matters already clarified by the Respondent in previous replies.
Page 34 of 38As per the record available in public domain, the Commission has disposed of 99 Second Appeals/Complaints filed by the same Appellant against same and different Public Authorities and 10 cases are listed for hearing today. In this regard, the Commission would like to refer to the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, (2011) 8 SCC497 made the following observations:
"67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace; tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
18. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court also while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has observed that:
"........Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Page 35 of 38 Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ......."
19. In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its order dated 08.10.2015 has held that:
"8. .....Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same becomes relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto..."
20. Further, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under -
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide. Page 98 of 99 The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
21. During the hearing, the CPIO informed the Commission that the Appellant is a frequent applicant who has filed over more than 50 RTI Applications and 25 RTI First Appeal and 2 public grievances since 2023 in their department. In addition, more than 100 Second Appeals of the same Appellant concerning different Public Page 36 of 38 Authorities have been decided by this Commission. While the RTI Act is a "Sunshine Law" intended to empower the common man, it is not a tool for administrative harassment or private vendetta. A single "professional" applicant cannot be permitted to hog the time and resources of a public body at the cost of other genuine information seekers. The Commission finds that the Appellant's request is frivolous and vexatious. The sheer volume and frequency of his applications indicate a clear attempt to hold the Public Authority to "ransom". The Appellant is admonished to exercise his right to information with responsibility and restraint. The Public Authority is advised to maintain a record of such repetitive and harassing applications to be presented in future hearings to establish a pattern of misuse. All the Second Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमे श) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Under Secretary & CPIO, Ministry of Women & Child Development, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001.
2 Rajnish Ratnakar, Page 37 of 38 Annexure of Second Appeals.
S. No. Second Appeals
1. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/635389
2. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/637249
3. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/642213
4. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/649703
5. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/649736
6. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/654600
7. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/657101
8. CIC/MOWCD/A/2025/622381
9. CIC/MOWCD/A/2025/643729
10. CIC/MOWCD/A/2025/643731
Page 38 of 38
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)