Central Information Commission
Tarun Kumar Banjaree vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 22 May, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/C/2016/000104
Dated 03.05.2017
Complainant : Shri Tarun Kumar Banjaree,
Deputy Commandant, 12 BN,
ITBP, Matli, Uttarkashi,
Uttarakhand-249193.
Respondent : The Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate General, Indo Tibetan
Border Police Force,
CGO Complex, Block-2, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110 003.
Date of Hearing : 02.05.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI application : 02.06.2014
CPIO's reply : 04.06.2014 /26.06.2014
First Appeal : 24.07.2014
Complaint : 23.11.2014
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking information regarding the grounds on which he was debarred from counting his previous service rendered in the Indian Navy towards pensionary benefits. MHA transferred the RTI application to the Directorate General, Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) Force.
2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that the information sought by him has been incorrectly denied Page 1 under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act and that the FAA did not respond to his first appeal.
Hearing:
3. The complainant Shri Tarun Kumar Banjaree and the respondent Shri Davinder Pal, Sr. Administration Officer, ITBP were present in person.
4. The complainant submitted that the information sought has been incorrectly denied on the grounds that ITBP has been declared an exempt organization under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The complainant further submitted that he is aware that ITBP is exempted under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act and therefore, the RTI application was addressed to CPIO, MHA. However, the same was transferred to the CPIO, ITBP for further necessary action.
5. The respondent submitted that the complainant was informed vide letter dated 26.06.2014 that ITBP has been declared an exempt organization under Section 24(1) read with the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the information sought by the complainant does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The provisions of the RTI Act are, therefore, not applicable in this matter. In view of this, the information sought cannot be provided to the complainant. The respondent contended that the appellant was informed vide Memorandum dated 12.12.2012 that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had held that the CCS (Pension) Rules are not applicable to officers who join ITBP after 01.01.2004 and hence the past military services rendered by them cannot be counted towards pensionary benefits. The respondent further submitted that the matter relating to the counting of past service rendered before joining ITBP on or after 01.01.2004 was re-examined by the DoPT and it has been decided that an employee who had applied through proper channel and was relieved from IAF/Navy/Army to take appointment in a Central Government civil services with proper permission will be allowed to count past services towards pensionary benefits.
Page 2 Decision:
6. The Commission is aware that under Section 24(1) read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005, ITBP has been declared an exempt organization. Hence, the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable to the ITBP except when the information pertains to allegations of corruption or human rights violations. However, the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 7453/2011 dated 09.10.2013 (Union of Indian vs Adarsh Sharma) has held that:-
"5. .......if an information of the nature sought by the respondent is easily available with the Intelligence Bureau, the agency would be well-advised in assisting a citizen, by providing such an information, despite the fact that it cannot be accessed as a matter of right under the provisions of Right to Information Act................ It is again made clear that information of this nature cannot be sought as a matter of right and it would be well within the discretion of the Intelligence Bureau whether to supply such information or not........."
In view of the above, the Commission would like ITBP to consider the request of the complainant and provide information to the extent possible to the complainant.
7. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Page 3