Central Information Commission
Arunender Thakur vs Indian Army on 6 March, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2018/152011
Arunedra Thakur ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Under Secretary,
M/o Defence,
Room No. - 225C,
South Block,
New Delhi - 110001
CPIO,
Integrated Headquarters,
M/o Defence(Navy),
New Delhi - 110011
CPIO,
RTI Cell, G - 6, D - 1 Wing,
Sena Bhawan,
Gate No. 04, IHQ of MoD(Army),
New Delhi - 110011
CPIO,
O/o Under Secretary,
MoD(Pay/Services),
Room No. - 153, 'B' Wing,
Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011
1
CPIO,
Tri Services Pay Staff,
Room No. - 116,
Kashmir House,
Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi - 110011 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
RTI application filed on : 14/04/2018
CPIO replied on : 19/06/2018
First appeal filed on : 23/05/2018
First Appellate Authority order : No order
Second Appeal dated : 25/07/2018
Date of Hearing : 05/03/2020
Date of Decision : 05/03/2020
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant sought copy of noting sheet on which 'Non-Functional Upgrade' (NFU) or the 'Apex grade' of pay/pension is being allotted to Government servants by virtue of seniority and the noting sheet on which NFU was not approved.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent (1): Tarun Sood, US(Pers) & CPIO, M/o Defence, Room No. 225C, South Block, New Delhi present in person.
Respondent (2): Cdr-At-Arms Rakeksh Rawat, CPIO and Lt Cdr-At-Arms Lalit Kumar, DPS, RTI Cell, IHQ of MoD(Navy), New Delhi present in person.2
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2018/152011 Respondent (3): Lt Col. Jagdish Prasad, GSO1(Legal) & Rep. of CPIO, IHQ of MoD(Army), New Delhi present in person.
Respondent (4): Not present.
Respondent (5): Col Hitesh Kochhar, CPIO, Capt (IN) Sunil Tyagi and Wg CdrVikut Gupta, Tri Services Pay Staff, Kashmir House, New Delhi present in person.
Commission remarked upon perusal of facts on record that the Appellant has primarily based his grounds of Appeal against the action of Respondent No.1 in not having provided the desired notesheets and for transferring the RTI Application from one office to another. Appellant has expressed disbelief at the claim of non-availability of noting sheets containing policy decisions which affect all officers of defence forces on the basis of which Apex pay/NFU pay is given to certain high ranking officers.
Respondent (1) submitted that although they receive proposals regarding grant of Apex scale to Service Officers from respective Directorates but no proposal for Non Functional upgrade for grant of Apex scale has been received because for each service fixed number of posts are designated to be in the Apex scale. He further submitted that since the requirement of the Appellant was not very clear, the RTI Application was transferred to the three services in a bid to render reasonable assistance to the Appellant in securing information, if any, was available with the closely related three public authorities.
Decision Commission based on the perusal of facts on record upholds the submissions of Respondent No.1. Moreover, in view of the fact that Appellant has not availed the opportunity of hearing to plead his case or contest the submissions of the Respondent No.1, no scope of intervention lies in the matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
3
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
4