Central Information Commission
Pathan Ismali I vs Department Of Posts on 9 November, 2020
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/173052
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2018/173052
In the matter of:
Pathan Ismail I ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Sr. Supdt of Posts Offices,
Department of Posts,
O/o. the Sr. Supdt of Post Offices,
Mumbai North East Division,
Bhandup (E),
Mumbai - 400 042
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 27.08.2018 FA : 02.11.2018 SA : 19.12.2018
CPIO : 26.09.2018 FAO : 28.11.2018 Hearing : 05.11.2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Pathan Ismail I, Appellant and Shri Naser Mahaboob Sheikh,
Representative, heard through video conferencing.
Page 1 of 8
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/173052
Respondent: Shri Vikas Rai, ASP, Department of Posts, Mumbai North East
Division, Bhandup (E), Mumbai, heard through video conferencing.
ORDER
Information Sought:
The appellant filed an RTI application on 27.08.2018 seeking information on eight points pertaining to status and action taken on the points raised in appellant's application dated 29.05.2018 (from 04.07.2008 till date of reply), including;
1) Kindly cause to intimate the status of the application dated 29.5.2018.
2) Copy of the office note prepared on receipt of application dated 29.5.2018 with orders passed by Hon'ble S.S.P.O's Mumbai North East Dn. Mumbai 400042 be provided.
3) Kindly cause to intimate reasons for consideration of option form for fixation of pay under TBOP Order No. NE/BIII/TB0P/POSTMAN/PROMOTION/08-09 dated 4.7.2008, submitted by officials whose name entered at Sr. No. 1 to 7, 9 & 10 in the table of application dated 29.5.2018 after lapsed /cross. the crucial date i.e. 03.08.2008 for the fixation at pay under TBOP promotion. These officials never submitted their option form for fixation of pay under TBOP promotion on or before 3-8-2008 i.e. crucial date for submission of the same.
4) Kindly cause to intimate the names of the officials submitted their option form tor fixation of their pay under TBOP promotion order dated 4.07.2008 on or before i.e. crucial date 03.08.2008.
5) Kindly cause to intimate the reasons for fixation of par of P.D. Bansod Postman Mulund (W) P.O. 400080 under TBOP Promotion dated 04.07.2008 after laps of crucial date 03.08.2008 for submission of option Page 2 of 8 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/173052 form more over the official never submitted his option form on or before 03.08.2008 Except submitted his option form dated 28.10.2008 under 6th CPO and considering the same his pay initially fixed under TBOP order dated 04.07.2008 from date 26.2.2008 and refixed from the next increment date 01-07-2008.
6) Kindly cause to intimate the nature of action taken for correct fixation of pay of the official whose name entered at Sr. No. 1, 7, 9, & 10 of the table of application appended.
7) Kindly cause to intimate whether recovery of pay allowance paid to the officials whose name figured in application appended under fixation of pay under TBOP order dated 04.07.2008 as stated hereinabove. If so details on the same be provided.
8) Kindly cause to provide the copy of pay fixation under TBOP order dated 04.07.2008 pertaining to the officials name entered in table at Sr. No. 1 to 7 and 9 and 10 copy of application dated 29.05.2018.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 26.09.2018, provided point wise information to the appellant. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 02.11.2018. FAA, vide order dated 28.11.2018, upheld the CPIO's reply and stated that grievance redressal and furnishing reply to hypothetical questions is beyond the purview of the RTI Act.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.Page 3 of 8
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/173052 Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant's representative submitted that misleading information has been furnished by the respondent on point nos. 3, 4 and 6 of the RTI application. He further referred to a reply received from the respondent in response to another RTI application filed by the appellant and submitted that as per the list of officials furnished in that reply, one of the officials submitted his option form on 04.02.2009 whereas as per the list furnished against point no. 3 of the RTI application in question, the same official submitted his option form on 01.08.2008.
This is clearly indicative of the discrepancies in the information furnished by the respondent public authority. He furthermore submitted that the crucial date/expiry date to submit the said form was 07.08.2008. However, certain officials were permitted to submit their forms as late as 04.02.2009 thereby exhibiting partiality towards the appellant.
The respondent submitted that correct and complete information, as available on record, has been furnished to the appellant vide reply dated 26.09.2018. He further submitted that the list furnished to the appellant in response to the instant RTI application is pertaining TBOP Promotion, as sought for. However, the list, as received in reply to another RTI application, to which the appellant is comparing the aforesaid list, consists of the details of option forms collected after the 6th CPC. Thus, the information furnished in both the replies is different. The relevant documents consisting of the details/option forms of officials, as furnished against point nos. 3 and 4, were also inspected by the appellant's representative during the course of hearing. On being dissatisfied despite inspection, the respondent agreed to furnish a copy of all the relevant documents to the appellant.
Page 4 of 8CIC/POSTS/A/2018/173052 Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that due information, as available on record, has already been furnished to the appellant by the respondent. Moreover, a copy of all the relevant documents was also shown to the appellant and his representative during the course of hearing to authenticate the information furnished by the respondent vide reply dated 26.09.2018. It must be noted that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for non- compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in Review Petition [C] No.2309 OF 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 wherein it was held as under:
"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. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."Page 5 of 8
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/173052 Further, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Nonetheless, the respondent has agreed to furnish a copy of all the relevant documents for the purpose of establishing the authenticity of the information furnished so far. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to furnish relevant documents, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, to the appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 6 of 8CIC/POSTS/A/2018/173052 Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 05.11.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Director Postal Service (MR), Department of Posts, O/o. the Postmaster General, Mumbai Region, Mumbai - 400 001
2. The Central Public Information Officer Sr. Supdt of Posts Offices, Department of Posts, O/o. the Sr. Supdt of Post Offices, Mumbai North East Division, Bhandup (E), Mumbai - 400 042 Page 7 of 8 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/173052
3. Mr. Pathan Ismail I Page 8 of 8