Central Information Commission
Kamal Kanta Rana vs Comptroller & Auditor General on 29 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CAGIN/A/2024/647131
Kamal Kanta Rana ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: The Accountant
General (A&E), West Bengal, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Indian Audit and Accounts
Department, Kolkata
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 20.05.2024 FA : 12.08.2024 SA : 23.10.2024
CPIO : 19.06.2024 &
FAO : 12.09.2024 Hearing : 23.09.2025
20.09.2024
Date of Decision: 26.09.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:
In reference to your reply letter No-Admn-I/1521/RTIAct:2005/vol.XLI/2024-25 dt.-03/05/2024.I have been informed that neither the particulars of the employees who have been drawn higher scale of pay nor any specific information with respect to interim order of Hon'ble High Court in the light of which those employees have drawn higher scale of pay has been mentioned......Page 1 of 6
1. Whether G.O. No. 547-F (Pen) dated 12.04.1993 (when interim orders have been passed by the Hon'ble High Court or Appeals are pending in Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal) has maintained against those above-mentioned employee or not.
2. Provide sufficient justification for providing them P.P.O. where judicial or departmental proceedings are still pending in Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal.
3. Let me know type of action taken from your end.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. The sought for information against the govt. employees as specified in your instant RTI application is personal in nature in respect of those employees.
Besides, disclosure of the information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individuals concerned. As such, disclosure of the sought for information is exempted as per Section 8(1) (j) of the R.T.I. Act, 2005.
2. Regarding "justification" as sought for, it is to state that as per Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 "justification" cannot be classified as information. Therefore, this office apropos of the R.T.I. Act, 2005 is not under the compulsion to provide the "justification" as sought for.
3. In view of what stated in respect of query no.1, this office has no comments to offer further.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.09.2024 directed the CPIO as under: -
"In this regard. CPIO is hereby directed to provide the factual position in detail including if information which is not available in this Public Authority in respect of the earlier mentioned 4nos. of Govt. employees within the purview of the R.T.I. Act. 2005 immediately from the date of issuance of this 'Order' to the appellant Page 2 of 6 concerned apropos of para 4(i) under the 'Govt. of India's Decision regarding disposal of first appeals under the RTI Act. 2005 as enumerated under Section 19 and in conformity with the DoPT's O.M. No. 10/23/2007 dated 09/07/2007."
4. In compliance of the FAA order, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under: -
".....With respect to the instant First Appeal wherein it has been requested to provide information whether G.O.No.547-F(Pen) dated 12/04/1993 has been mentioned or not against some mentioned employees when interim order have been passed by the Hon'ble High Court or appeal are pending in Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal, it is to state that the pension case where the employee has been awarded higher scale of pay in compliance of the interim order of the Hon'ble Court and the last pay in his respect has been arrived at accordingly or where an appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Court against Court order, such case is returned with the direction to pay provisional pension only (without even provisional gratuity) from the side of the respective D.D.O., till its finalization as per provision of the G.O. No.547-F(Pen) dated 12/04/1993.
However, this Public Authority has no scope to ascertain whether the last pay has been arrived at on account of interim order where final verdict is pending or as a result of Court order against which an Appeal has been preferred unless the same is recorded in the Service Book of the employee or reflected in pension papers submitted to this Public Authority as per sanction accorded by the concerned Pension Sanctioning Authority (PSA) as provided for in the said G.O. dated 12/04/1993. In absence of any such information, this Public Authority processes the pension cases in observance of the existing rules and regulations.
In respect of the aforesaid 4 nos. of employees as mentioned in the RTI application, individual Service Books were returned to the concerned PSAs after processing the pension cases. Hence, at this juncture, in absence of concerned Service Book, it is not possible to provide any information whether any interim Page 3 of 6 order was passed in favour of the aforesaid employees and whether any appeal was pending against such interim judgement.
Furthermore, it is to state that no documentation of such incidents by the concerned PSAs have also been found from the scrutiny in the respective Single Comprehensive Form and allied documents placed in the relevant case files. Hence, applicability of the G.O. dated 12/04/1993 does not arise in respect of those employees and accordingly, all the four cases had been released as per sanction accorded by the concerned PSAs."
5. Aggrieved with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 23.10.2024.
6. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Shailaja Ichare, CPIO, attended the hearing through audio conference.
7. The appellant inter alia submitted that all necessary information is documented in the service books of the concerned employees and Office of the Principal Accountant General is responsible for maintaining and accessing these records. He further stated that based on the Hon'ble High Court's judgment, the order from the Technical Education Department No. 130 TET (Poly)/5S-4/2002 (Pt-I), dated 26.02.2007, directed an upgrade from the 9th Pay Scale to the 10th Pay Scale for the period from the joining date to 02.01.2001 and re-fixation to the 9th Pay Scale from 03.01.2001 as per the Finance Department's Law Cell Notification No. 5-F (Law). Therefore, the claim that the service book does not or did not contain court case information is an illogical and unrealistic attempt to conceal the essential information.
8. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought information in respect of four retired workshop instructors of Govt. of West Bengal, namely (i) Shri Monoj Adhikary (pension case received as Monoj Kumar Adhikary) (ii) Shri Ramkrishna Mondal (iii) Shri Baburam Mondal and (iv) Shri,Bikash Majumder. Accordingly, they endorsed their reply dated 20.09.2024 wherein it was clarified that applicability of the G.O. dated 12/04/1993 does not arise in respect of those Page 4 of 6 employees and accordingly, all the four cases had been released as per sanction accorded by the concerned PSAs.
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that adequate information has been furnished by the respondent, as per the action taken and records available under their custody. Besides, the appellant has indirectly challenged the correctness of the decision taken thereof. In that regard, the Commission would like to refer to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 06.12.2023 in Narendra Tyagi vs Assistant Director (CPIO) [LPA 764/2023] extracted as under:
"13. Consequently, it is clear that dispute as regards the correctness of information provided under the RTI Act, or any other dispute or controversy, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the RTI Act. The CPIO is only required to supply all the information/documents within his access. Whether or not such information as provided by the CPIO under the RTI Act is incorrect in any manner, is not the domain of consideration or determination under the RTI proceedings."
Keeping in view the above, no further action is warranted in this matter. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 26.09.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Office of the Accountant General (A&E), West Bengal, Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Treasury Building, 2, Government Place West, Kolkata - 700001 2 Kamal Kanta Rana Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)