Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Shyam Sundar Sharma vs Indian Army on 30 July, 2018

                            dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                         dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx Hkou
              CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION BHAWAN
                        ckck xaxukFk ekxZ] eqfujdk
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                ubZ fnYyh-110067
                       Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
                         Email - [email protected]

         lwpuk vk;qDr               :   fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :              DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA

                                  File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/145218/SD
                                                Date of Hearing: 25/07/2018
                                                Date of Decision:25/07/2018
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                   :     Shyam Sundar Sharma
Respondent                  :     CPIO,
                                  Engineer-In-Chief's Branch,
                                  Integrated HQ of MoD (Army),
                                  DHQPO,
                                  New Delhi-110011.
RTI application filed on    :     01/11/2015
CPIO replied on             :     20/11/2015
First appeal filed on       :     NA
First Appellate Authority   :     No Order
order
Second Appeal dated         :     30/06/2017

Information sought

:

The appellant sought to know if there is any provision for 'equal pay for equal work' for employees of MES. If yes, how many Upper Division Clerks have not been paid as per this provision since 09.08.1999.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

The CPIO has returned the RTI Application seeking IPO to be drawn in favour of GE, New Delhi.

1 Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present. (Sent his written submission vide letter dated 12.07.2018) Respondent: K.K. Ojha, Director (RTI) & CPIO, HQ MES, New Delhi present in person.

Commission at the outset observed that no First Appeal has been filed in the matter, in which case, the Second Appeal is not maintainable. However, close scrutiny of records suggest that perhaps Appellant is not very well versed with the provisions of RTI Act, in as much as he has complained against the return of RTI Application and has not specified if he is filing the matter as a Complaint under Section 18 or a Second Appeal under Section 19 of RTI Act. Central Registry of CIC appears to have registered the case as Second Appeal based on erroneous interpretation of a letter dated 07.01.2016 of Appellant deeming it to be a First Appeal, when in fact it was not sent to the First Appellate Authority.

In view of the aforesaid, Commission continued the proceedings in the case as per Section 18 of RTI Act based on the nature of grounds submitted for adjudication.

Commission has received written submission of the Appellant wherein he has expressed his inability to appear for the hearing citing health reasons and has reiterated the return of IPO as unwarranted. He has urged that as per his understanding he is supposed to draw IPO in favour of the public authority with whom he files his RTI Application and if that is not the case he wants to know the authority under which he was asked to file the IPO in favour of another public authority. He also expressed his desire for the information sought by him to be provided to him.

CPIO was asked to explain the return of RTI Application and asking the Appellant to draw the IPO in favour of GE, New Delhi, when Rule 6(b) of RTI Rules, 2012 clearly prescribes that IPO is to be drawn in favour of the Accounts Officer of the public authority.

File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/145218/SD CPIO submitted that the Appellant's IPO was not drawn in favour of the Accounts Officer but as payable to "E-in-C branch". He further submitted that their office functions as the HQ for whole of MES and they do not have a separate public fund account, which is why, GE, New Delhi has been kept as a dedicated account for receipt of IPOs under RTI Act. In this regard, CPIO also referred to their office order no. A/00104/Policy/RTI dated 08.07.2015 available in public domain which prescribes that RTI Applications addressed to RTI Cell, E-in-C's Branch shall be accompanied with fee in the form of IPO/Bank Draft in favour of "GE, New Delhi". He furthermore added that to assist the RTI Applicants, they even accept blank IPOs but in the instant case, IPO was not even left bank but made payable to an account head which does not exist.

Decision In view of the submission of CPIO, Commission does not find any scope of intervention in as far as return of the IPO is concerned for being made payable to E-in-C Branch. However, Commission is of the considered opinion that the office order mentioned by the CPIO should include the term "Accounts Officer"

or should clarify that GE, New Delhi is the Accounts Officer for MES i.e in common parlance applicants may not understand that GE, New Delhi could also be an account head for MES, so in addition to blank IPOs, cases where applicants merely mention Accounts Officer; appropriate system should be in place to accept such IPOs as well by Respondent office.

Further, no relief can be ordered in the matter as the IPO drawn by the Appellant was defective and the instant matter is being heard and decided as a Complaint.

CPIO is directed to place this order before their competent authority for taking necessary steps to amend the office order dated 08.07.2015 as per above observations of the Commission. A report stating the action taken on said direction should be sent to the Commission by the CPIO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 4