Central Information Commission
S P Bajpai vs Controller General Of Defence Accounts ... on 25 March, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CGDAC/A/2023/147373
S P Bajpai .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad - 211014 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.03.2025
Date of Decision : 24.03.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.09.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 17.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.12.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 11.09.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 9
"1. Please refer to my representation dt. 08.02.2023 and also notes/comments endorsed upon my above cited representation and provide the information strictly relevant and bona fide to the following subject matter, under the RTI Act, 2005:-
(a) Under the statutory effect of "Air force pay Implementation Cell, West Block-VI, Air HQ, RK Puram, New Delhi-66" letter no Air HQ/99144/-4/AFPCC dt.
21.01.2010, my basic rate of pension was fixed at Rs. 15,285.00 (in the scale of 6750-200-9550, National top 9550 (pre-revised scale),w.e.f. 01.01.2016 (for post retiree).
(b) Being a Post reitree of 01.01.2016, my scale of basic pay was fixed at 17,770 in Pay Band of Grade Pay of 4800 and MSP of 2000= Rs. 24570.00
(c) While, revising my basic rate of pension, for the purpose of fixing that IInd Instalment of "OROP", you have ill-used your discretion with utmost malice and malignity, enforcing your malafide intentions to reduce most un-lawfully. My entitled rate of Basic Pension of Rs. 33,526/- to Rs. 33400 wef 01.07.2019 as per circular no. 666, proving an opportunity of protection.
(d) While, I was already included in the revision of 1st installment of "OROP" accordingly paid the 1st instalment wef 01.07.2014, the reason to exclude me from the entitlement of IInd instalment has not been justified, in black and white" under the aforesaid circular no. Enforcement of your deliberate intrusion amount to an willful act of dictatorship, IInd installment of OROP wef 01.07.2019 will not be allowed to your satisfaction of elopement without your legible clarification and due authority.
(e ) While, reducing my basic rate of Pension of Rs. 33526/- to Rs. 33400/- wef 01.07.2019 you have not provided you formula of calculation on basis of which you have reduced the amount nor have you also justified the reason of exclusion from IInd installment.
(f) Please provide your "formula and also detailed table of calculation" applied for implementation of IInd installment of OROP wef 01.07.2019.
Having not received any response from CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.10.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 9A written submission dated 19.03.2025 (copy marked to the appellant) has been filed by the respondent, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"1. That, the appellant through his online RTI application dt.11-09-2023 had made a query that his basic pension has been reduced in OROP II and sought formula and detailed table of calculation applied for implementation of IInd instalment of OROP w.e.f. 01/07/2019.
2. That, his application was responded to by the then CPIO vide letter bearing No. AN/RTI/3331/SPB/2023 dt.05-10-2023 (Copy enclosed) treating it as a grievance and intimating that there is no provision to reduce the pension whichever you are already getting and the OROP II is not beneficial to you. Further, the OROP II data of Sub Maj (equivalent to MWO in Air force) Gp-Y was also provided.
3. That, the appellant had preferred First Appeal dt.17-10-2023 expressing his dissatisfaction towards the reply provided for the RTI.
4. The said first appeal was disposed of vide letter bearing No. AN/RTI/3954/SPB/2023 dt.28-02-2024. (Copy enclosed).
5. The CIC Registration number CIC/CGDAC/A/2023/147373 dated 03.03.2025. was again examined by the concern section and point wise reply submitted as:
(a). Not sought any information under RTI Act-2005.
(b). As per our record pensioner is Pre-2016 retiree.
(c). So far as the revision of pension as per OROP-II w.e.f. 01/07/2019 is concern, the OROP-II is not beneficial in your case as you are already getting higher rate of pension as per OROP-I. (d & c). Being policy matter this office is unable to offer comment.
(f). While fixation of OROP pension to all pensioner the pension has been re-
fixed on the basic of the average of minimum and maximum pension of personnels retired in the same rank and with the same length of service.
As such, the appellant has been duly responded to by the then CPIO and requisite information as available in the office has been provided and his Page 3 of 9 grievance was settled as the OROP-II is not beneficial in applicant's case as he is already getting higher rate of pension as per OROP-J. It is requested that the case may be decided in view of the foregoing facts presented by the undersigned."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Shri Virendra Kumar, ACDA/ CPIO present through video- conference.
Written submission filed by the appellant is taken on record.
The Appellant during hearing reiterated the contents of his written submission and inter alia pleaded as under:
"In keeping with your orders contained against Pars 02 of your above-cited Notice orders, I hereby represent my case with most salient features inviting severe contradictory effect to my validity of One-rank-one-pension claim right became effective w.e.f.01.07.2019.
(a) while treating my RTI application dt. 11.09.2023, the CPIO, PCDA (Pension), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad-211014, has, all wilfully and also quite deliberately, severely influencing his dire male-fide intension, awarded fabricated, fraudulant, mis-leading and also non-identical-information, pertaining to a different RTI application vide his letter No. AN/RTI/3331/-SPB/2023 dt. 05.10.2023.
(b) A copy of the CPIO of the PCDA (Pension), Prayag-raj letter NO. AN/RTI/3954/SPB/2023 dt. 28.02.2024, Date discriminating the statutory Provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, statutory Provisions of Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, also fabricating the matter of RTI application.
(C) A copy of first Appeal dt. 17.10.2023. The First Appellate Authority did issue his "Speaking order" against the reply of the CPIO, PCDA(Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Prayagraj. He has over-looked his responsibility.
(d) A copy of appellate representation dt. 11.03.2023, together with its enclosures, high-lighting and also severely contradicting the unlawful proposal as to re-submitting of my First Appeal, a second time.
Page 4 of 9(2) A copy of appellant representation(complaint) dt. 04.12.2023 (Second Appeal) bring out all the points of irregularities and all deliberate points of discrimination, created by the irresponsible Public Authorities to the notice of the CIC for initiating Penalty action under the sub-section (01) of Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 under sub-section (02) of the Section (20) of the RTI Act,2005.
(e) The First Appellate Authority has, however, all wilfully and also quiet deliberately, ill-treated and has also violated the statutory provisions of the Sub- Section (06) of the Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 at the total cost of his professional duty, for which he was appointed as a "Public Authorities" under the RTI Act, 2005.
(f) The Public Authorities detailed under the statutory provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, allowing the intrusion and the unlawful interference of the Central Govt. of India to over-come their power of authority and also their detailed power of discretion, the guidelines of the policy on the matter of implementation of one-rank-one pension, Pt. II of the scheme w.e.f. 01.07.2019, "earlier issued by the UPA, government and "has also eloped with the allotted partial amount of Rs. 500 crores, blocking the implementation of the policy of one-rank-one pension, Pt. II of the scheme w.e.f. 01.07.2019". The then UPA government was also an elected govt. of the country, who has implemented the policy of one-rank-one pension, Pt. II of the scheme.
(g) The aforesaid Public Authorities over-loading the weight of intrusion and the un lawful inter--ference of the NDA government upon themselves, has over-ruled the constitutional acceptance of the UPA government, establishing it under an applied force of dire mala-fide intention and a cruel politi-Cal rivalry of the NDA government, popularly known for creating a chaos and of harmony among the ranks of the Defence Forces. Forces. They have mis mis- appropriated the partial allotted of Rs. 500 crores.
(h) The so-called Public Authorities has also quite wilfully and also quite deliberately violated the lawful effect of the statutory conditions of the Gazette Notification issued by Central Govt.
On 07.11.2015 with respect to the following:-
(i) Lack of proper application to ensure the Right of eligibility, countermanding the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court. I was eligible for the benefit of OROP, Pt. II w.e.f. 01.07.2019 to 30.06.24. But my legitimate right of eligibility has been over-done in collusion of one with the all others, since, I had already Page 5 of 9 been included in the OROP, Pt. I scheme commenced w.e.f. 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2019.
(ii) wrong implementation of the formula of the average", to be enforced on the basis of an Average formulas" worked out on the principle of " Minimum of all and also the Maximum of all. The se cunning and also most Anti-National- authorities have de-barred my eligible basic rate of monthly Pension of Rs. 33526/- to a most fabricated, fraudulent, forged rate of monthly pension of Rs. 33400 p.m. While, with the proper application of this alleged formula of 'average', as has been outlined in the tabulated table issued by the PCDA (Pension), Allahabad, my monthly rate of Basic Pension works out to Rs. 33675 p.m. But these notorious dacoits have out-lawed my entitled amount of Rs. 33675/- p.m. and have all forcibly imposed an anonymous amount of Rs. 33400/- p.m. most fabricatively and also most fraudulently.
(iii) These most notorious dacoits and almost notorious gangsters have also shown their deliberate and most wilful professional aptitude in fixing the period of qualifying service "by defaulting with its length of qualifying period". How have they dared so much to express their this dangerous aptitude to cause a deemed disparity that to so much fearlessly ? How could they all become a notorious dacoits to such an extent to actuate their deemed level of dacoity by playing wrongfully with the length of qualifying service so cruelly? Are they all not a human beings? My length of qualifying service has not been calculated at all. I was established to my substantive vacancy of JCOS cadre in the rank of "Master Warrant Officer" w.e.f. 01.07.1998 and fulfilled this substantive vacancy of my aforesaid rank upto 30.06.2022 all at a stretch. This alleged length of qualifying service, as shown in the table No. 7, falls out of the qualifying period of 33 years and above demarcated only for MWOS. But, in facts, for this alleged demarcation length of qualifying period of 33 years and above, exclusively demarcated for only MWOS, was eligible only for the monthly rate of Basic Pension of warrant officer rank. I had fulfilled the rank vacancy of warrant officer only upto 30.06.1998. Therefore, the alleged revision of my basic rate of monthly pension in the substantive cadre of MWO rank could be effective from 01.07.1998, since, the continuity of qualifying period of 33 years and above, as shown under Table No. 7, has surpassed to next higher rank of MWO. As such, my revision of Pension under OROP, Pt. II scheme commences w.e.f. 01.07.1998, this spell of qualifying period of services of 33 years and above undergoes a phase of next change, still falling under the same spell of qualifying period of service of 33 years and above..."
Page 6 of 9While summing up his arguments, the appellant alleged that his pension was not revised to Rs. 33,675/- p.m. against actual payment of Rs. 33,400/- p.m. In this regard, he sought intervention of the Commission.
The respondent by inviting attention of the bench towards his written submission averred that reply has already been provided to the appellant earlier vide letter dated 05.10.2023 with a copy of relevant circular showing method of calculating pension. He added that as regards revision of pension under OROP-II is concerned, appellant will not get any benefits from the same as he is already getting higher pension under OROP-I which may be reduced upon revision with formula applicable under OROP-II.
Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that as far as RTI Application is concerned appropriate response has been provided to the appellant earlier vide letter dated 05.10.2023 now vide written submission dated 19.03.2025 as the provisions of the RTI Act, which is upheld.
It also appears that the Appellant is embracing his grievance regarding non- receipt of higher pension and no specific information has been sought by him as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither Page 7 of 9 required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
(Emphasis Supplied) Intervention of the Commission is not warranted in this matter.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that 33 cases of the Appellant against the same/different Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission from 2016 onwards. The Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in his RTI Applications apparently to pressure the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The approach of the Appellant is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, 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 and leave it to the respondent to choose a remedy.
"...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 8 of 9
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..."
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. As regards his grievance he may ventilate the same before the appropriate forum because RTI Act is not a grievance redressal channel.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA O/o the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad - 211014 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)