Nityananda Das vs Indian Grassland And Fodder Research ... on 30 June, 2020

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Nityananda Das vs Indian Grassland And Fodder Research ... on 30 June, 2020

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                             क य सुचना आयोग
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                            Baba Gangnath Marg
                        मुिनरका, नई द ली- 110067
                        Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                                                    File Nos. (As per annexure)

In the matter of:
Nityananda Das
                                                                ... Complainant
                                       VS

1.Deemed CPIO, Assistant Administrative Officer,
ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI),
Izatnagar- 243122, U.P.

2.Sr. F&AO and CPIO
ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute(IVRI),
Izatnagar- 243122, U.P.

3.Asst. Admn Officer & CPIO
Indian Veterinary Research Institute(IVRI),
Izatnagar- 243122, U.P.

4.Central Public Information Officer,
Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI),
Finance Wing, Izatnagar- 243122, U.P.

5.Central Public Information Officer
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
Opp. Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001

6.US (Pers. IV) & CPIO
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
Opp. Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001



                                        1
 7.US (DA&A) & CPIO
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
Opp. Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001
                                                                  ...Respondents

Date of hearing: 29.06.2020 Date of decision: 29.06.2020 File Nos. RTI application replied on filed on 1.655120 19/09/2019 and 21/10/2019 2.655136 21/09/2019 and 21/10/2019 3.655148 21/09/2019 and 21/10/2019 4.657047 26/09/2019 5.657256 19/09/2019 6.657282 19/09/2019 7.657408 20/09/2019 8.657409 20/09/2019 9.657528 20/09/2019 10.657655 21/09/2019 11.657657 23/09/2019 12.657747 24/09/2019 13.657796 24/09/2019 14.657829 26/09/2019 15.657939 28/09/2019 16.658054 07/10/2019 17.658117 25/09/2019 18.658157 01/10/2019 19.658355 18/10/2019 2 04/11/2019 14/11/2019 Not on record 04/01/2020 07/01/2020 08/01/2020 Not on Record 12/03/2020 22/03/2019 23/03/2019 Not on Record 23/06/2019 11/01/2019 18/01/2019 22/03/2019 24/06/2019 03/09/2019 11/08/2019 Not on Record 20/09/2019 Not on Record 12/08/2019 Not on Record 21/09/2019 Not on Record 13/08/2019 Not on Record 23/09/2019 Not on Record 18/08/2019 Not on Record 25/09/2019 Not on Record 23/08/2019 Not on Record 27/09/2019 30/09/2019 29/08/2019 23/10/2019 29/10/2019 and 03/10/2019 03/12/2018 29/10/2018 08/01/2019 04/11/2019 and and 11/01/2019 07/12/2018 15/02/2019 26/02/2019 07/08/2019 10/11/2019 03/01/2019 13/12/2018 Not on Record 13/11/2019 Not on Record 01/11/2019 Not on Record 20/12/2019 07/01/2020 01/12/2019 Not on Record 07/03/2020 08/11/2019 01/12/2019 Not on Record 09/03/2020 01/02/2019 01/02/2019 22/02/2019 23/02/2019 Not on Record 11/08/2019 04/09/2019 08/11/2019

Complainant: Present over phone Respondent: Shri S S Rawat, AAO & PIO, Shri Debashis Moitra, CAO & the CPIO, Shri Pramod Kumar, Smt. Sandevan Prakash, Deputy Director (Finance) and CPIO, Shri Gautam Saxena, Assistant Administrative Officer and CPIO, all heard over phone.

Information Sought:

In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/655120 Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) vide Office Order F. No. 1- 4/2009-Per IV dated 29.08.2019 had allowed revision of pension of Scientists following revision of Pay Scales on the recommendation of the 7th CPC with effect from 01.01.2016. Complainant retired from ICAR-IGFRI Jhansi (UP) as Principal Scientist on 31.07.2017. However, he was getting pension in the pre-

revised scales (i.e. 6th CPC) since his retirement from August, 2017 to May, 2019. In the said context he has sought the following information:

1. Provide the reference number(s) of all relevant ICAR orders / circulars guidelines etc. which were forwarded to the IVRI in respect of revision of the pension (following the recommendation of Seventh Pay Commission) of the retired scientists other than veterinary scientist.

2. Provide the reference number(s) of all relevant ICAR orders / circulars guidelines etc. which were forwarded to the IVRI in respect of revision of the pension (following the recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission) of the retired veterinary scientist who had been drawing Non Practicing Allowance (NPA).

3. Provide the certified copies of complete file noting in respect of revision of the pension (following the recommendation of Seventh Pay Commission) of the entire IVRI scientist who retired on or after 01.01.2016.

4. And other related information.

In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/655136 ICAR vide Office Memorandum F. No. 1(10)/2018-Per.IV dated 13.03.2019 revised the allowances of Scientists of ICAR w.e.f. 01.07.2017 in light of revision of allowances of teachers in Universities and colleges as per recommendation of 7th CPC notified by MHRD vide letter No. 1-4/2017-U.II dated 28.01.2019 and 01.02.2019. In the said context, the complainant has sought the following information:

1. Provide the certified copy of the Pension Calculation Sheet, which is the basis for issuing the PPO in respect of Dr. A. K. Sharma, Ex - Principal Scientist (retired on 31.07.2017 from IVRI).

2. Provide all the relevant Office Orders /Circulars etc which were used / consulted while preparing the Pension Calculation Sheet in respect of Dr. A. K. Sharma, Ex - Principal Scientist (retired on 31.07.2017 from IVRI).

3. Provide the certified copy of pay slip (for the month of July, 2017) of Dr. A. K. Sharma, Ex - Principal Scientist (retired on 31.07.2017 from IVRI)

4. Provide the certified copy of the PPO issued in respect of Dr. A. K. Sharma, Ex - Principal Scientist (retired on 31.07.2017 from IVRI) 4 In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/655148 The Complainant has sought the following information:

1. Provide the certified copy of the Pension Calculation Sheet, which is the basis for issuing the PPO in respect of Dr. S.N. Sarkar, Ex-principal Scientist, who voluntary retired from IVRI on 01.11.2016.

2. Provide all the relevant Office Orders /Circulars, etc. which were used / consulted while preparing the Pension Calculation Sheet in respect of Dr. S.N. Sarkar, Ex-principal Scientist, who voluntary retired from IVRI on 01.11.2016.

3. Provide the certified copy of pay slip (for the month of November, 2017) of Dr. S.N. Sarkar, Ex-principal Scientist who voluntary retired from IVRI on 01.11.2016.

4. Provide the certified copy of the PPO issued in respect of Dr. S.N. Sarkar, Ex-principal Scientist who voluntary retired from IVRI on 01.11.2016 In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657047 ICAR vide Office Order F. No. 1-4/2009-Per IV dated 29.08.2019 had allowed Revision of Pension of Scientist following revision of Pay Scales on the recommendation of the 7th CPC with effect from 01.01.2016. Complainant retired from ICAR-IVRI Izatnagar (UP) as Principal Scientist on 31.07.2017. From August, 2017 to August, 2019, he had been getting fixed Dearness Allowance @ 125% (under the 6th Central Pay Commission, CPC). In the said context, he has sought the following information:

1. Provide the certified copies all ICAR orders / circulars guidelines etc. which were used/ followed by the Pension Authorizing Authority at IVRI, Izatnagar while denying the revision of Dearness Allowance in respect of Dr. Nityananda Das, Ex Principal Scientist, IGFRI, Jhansi (UP) during the period from 01.8.2017 to 01.08.2019.

2. (i) The designation of all the concerned officials at IVRI Pension Authorizing Unit who were involved in the decision that the Dearness Allowance in respect of Dr. Nityananda Das would not be revised and he would continue to draw the Dearness Allowance at fixed rate of 125% during the period from 01.08.2017 to 01.08.2019.

(ii) The complete file noting wherein it was decided that the Dearness Allowance in respect of Dr. Nityananda Das would not be revised and he would continue to draw the Dearness Allowance at fixed rate of 125%.

In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657256 ICAR vide Office Memorandum F. No. 1(10)/2018-Per.IV dated 13.03.2019 revised the allowances of Scientists of ICAR w.e.f. 01.07.2017 in the light of revision of allowances of teachers in Universities and colleges as per recommendations of 7th CPC notified by MHRD vide letter No. 1-4/2017-U.II dated 28.01.2019 and 01.02.2019. But during the month of July, 2017, he did not get revised (i) Dearness Allowance and (ii) Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) on increased rates (w.e.f. 01.07.2017) as per recommendation of Seventh Pay Commission. In the said context, the Complainant has sought the following information:

1. The designation of officer(s) at IVRI who has been delegated power to authorize payment of both the (i) Dearness Allowance and (ii) Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) on increased rates w.e.f. 01.07.2017 as per recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission to the scientists posted at IVRI, Izatnagar.

2. The rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by the IVRI or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions related to payment of both the (i) Dearness Allowance and (ii) Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) on increased rates w.e.f. 01.07.2017 as per recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission to scientists posted at IVRI, Izatnagar.

3. The designation of the officer(s) at IVRI who is responsible for ensuring that instructions of the Government have been carried out by the IVRI and payment of additional relief in respect of all allowances at revised rates w.e.f. 01.07.2017 as per recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission to all IVRU scientists has been commenced by them without any undue delay.

4. And other related information.

In file no.: CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657282 The Complainant has made a reference to Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. The ICAR vide letter F. No. 1(4)/2017 - Per. IV dated 27.03.2018 revised the pay scale of the scientists following revision of pay scale of Central Government Employees on recommendation of 7th Pay Commission. Upto 31.12.2015, the scientists of ICAR were governed by the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008,but after the issuance of above mentioned ICAR letter dated 27.03.2018, there was confusion whether the Central Civil Services 6 (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 would be applicable fully or partially to the scientists working in the ICAR system. In the said context, the complainant has sought the following information:

1. Provide specific information whether the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules (the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 OR the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016) are applicable for the IVRI scientist w.e.f01.01.2016.

2. Provide the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by the IVRI or used by its employees for discharging its functions viz.

revision of pay scale of the IVRI veterinary scientists (who are drawing Non-practicing Allowance in the 6th CPC) following revision of pay scale of Central Government Employees on recommendation of 7th Pay Commission.

3. Provide the copy of the Government Rules which are applicable for scientists of IVRI, Izatnagar who is eligible to draw pay in the revised pay structure as per 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) w.e.f 01.01.2016 but elect to continue to draw pay in existing pay structure (as per 6th Central Pay Commission) until the date on which he earns next or any subsequent increment in existing pay structure (as per 6th Central Pay Commission).

4. And other related information.

In file no.: CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657408 The complainant has sought the following information:

1. Provide the name(s) and designation(s) of the officers at IVRI, Izatnagar, who decided that the guidelines given at Para 7(B) of the Gazette Notification dated 25.07.2016, Dep. of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 (in respect of officers drawing NPA) will be applicable for the IVRI Scientist drawing Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) while revising their pay following the Seventh Pay Commission Recommendation.

2. Provide the certified copy of the complete file noting (which inter alia may include comments of the Finance Officer(s), IVRI, Izatnagar related to the pay revision (following the Seventh Pay Commission Recommendation) of the IVRI Scientists who are drawing Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) as on 31.12.2015.

3. Provide the details of the day to day actions taken by the Finance Section / Unit of IVRI, Izatnagar in respect of the examination of the matter regarding pay fixation of IVRI Scientists drawing NPA (as per recommendation of 7th Pay Commission).

In file no.: CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657409 ICAR vide Office Memorandum F. No. 1(10)/2018-Per.IV dated 13.03.2019 revised the allowances of Scientist of ICAR w.e.f. 01.07.2017 in the light of the revision of allowances of teachers in Universities and colleges as per recommendation of 7th CPC notified by MHRD vide letter No. 1-4/2017-U.II dated 28.01.2019 and 01.02.2019. In the said context, the Complainant has sought the following information:

1. Provide the date when the IVRI, Izatnagar (UP) received ICAR Office Memorandum F. No. 1(10)/2018-Per.IV dated 13.03.2019 regarding revision of allowances as per the 7th CPC for ICAR Scientist.

2. Provide the file number wherein the above mentioned ICAR Office Memorandum F. No. 1(10)/2018-Per.IV dated 13.03.2019 was processed / examined by the IVRI authority for granting revised allowances to all the scientists working at IVRI as on 01.07.2017.

3. Provide the name(s) and designation(s) of the IVRI officer(s) who processed / examined the applicability of the ICAR Office Memorandum F. No. 1(10)/2018- Per.IV dated 13.03.2019 for granting revised Non Practicing Allowance, (NPA) to the veterinary scientists working at the IVRI, Izatnagar as on 01.07.2017.

In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657528 The Complainant has retired from ICAR IGFRI Jhansi (UP) as Principal Scientist on 31.07.2017. The Basic amount of his pension was fixed at Rs. 42500 along with DA Rs. 53125 (@125%) with effect from 01.07.2016. Due to some unknown reasons, the DA on the basis amount of pension was calculated at the rate of 125% i.e. the rate prevalent as on 01.01.2016. He has been getting the same DA for the last 24 months. He has quoted following information available under FAQs on the Pensioners Portal of Govt. of India:

(a) DEARNESS RELIEF 12.1 What is the extent of neutralization of relief granted to pensioners?

100% neutralization of relief is granted to all pensioners at the same rate like serving employees.

12.2 Is the Dearness Relief payable on original basic pension or on reduced pension after commutation?

The Dearness Relief is payable on original basic pension before commutation.

In the above context, the Complainant has sought the following information:

1. Provide the designation of the officer at IVRI Headquarter, Izatnagar who authorizes PAO/CPAO required for payment of dearness relief on increased rates to pensioners.

2. The rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by the IVRI or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions related to payment of Dearness Allowance to the scientists retired from both (i) the IVRI and (ii) the research institutions like IGFRI, Jhansi (UP).

3. And other related information.

In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657655 Complainant has stated that under section 51 of the CGST Act, 2017, (a) a department or establishment of the Central Government or State Government, or (b) local authority, or (c) Governmental agencies, or (d) such persons or category of persons as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council, to deduct tax at the rate of one per cent on account of CGST and one percent on account of SGST from the payment made or credited to the supplier where the total value of the supply under a contract exceeds two lakh and fifty thousand rupees (excluding tax payable under the GST Acts). The deductor shall remit the deducted amount to the Government and is also required to furnish a certificate to the deducted by mentioning the details of the amount deducted and payment of such deducted amount.

The Complainant has sought the following information with reference to the above context:

1. The total amount that was paid to all the Contractors for providing labours / workers to undertake assigned job works at IVRI, Izatnagar (UP) in the financial year 2017-18.

2. The total amount of tax (GST) that was deducted by the IVRI authority as TDS (as per section 51 of the CGST Act, 2017) from the bills submitted by the Contractors (for providing labours / workers to undertake assigned job works at IVRI, Izatnagar, U.P.) in the financial year 2017-18.

3. And other related information.

In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657657 The Complainant was paid first instalment of gratuity on 31.08.2017 and the balance amount of the enhanced gratuity of Rs.10.00 lakh was paid to him 29.10.2018. In connection with the payment of interest on delayed period involved in the payment of gratuity, complainant has sought the following information:

1. Provide the date when the Pension Authorization Unit, IVRI, Izatnagar (UP) adopted the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions letter F. No 38/37/2016 -P&PW(A)(i) dated 04 August 2016 (regarding implementation of Governments decision on the recommendation of the Seventh Central Pay Commission - Revision of provisions regulating pension /gratuity/ commutation of pension/ family pension/ disability pension/ex - gratia lump-sum compensation etc).

2. Provide the date(s) when the Pension Authorization Unit, IVRI, Izatnagar (UP) authorized the payment of retirement gratuity to Dr. N. Das, Retired Principal Scientist, ICAR - IGFRI, Jhansi (UP).

3. And other related information.

In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657747 The complainant has sought the following information in connection with the fixation of pay as per the 7th CPC:

1. Provide reference number(s) of all the relevant instruction(s) (issued by Government of India from time to time), which were used by the IVRI while fixation of pay of IVRI veterinary scientists (drawing non-practicing allowance, NPA) in accordance with the ICAR's letter F. No. 1(4)/2017-Per.IV dated 27.03.2018.

2. (i) Details of action taken by the IVRI (till date) to seek necessary clarification from the ICAR Headquarter, New Delhi on the issue i.e. whether Dearness Allowance on Non - Practicing Allowance (NPA) is to be considered while fixing the revised pay of the IVRI scientists drawing NPA (based on the 7th CPC).

(ii) Certified copy of the response (if any) received by the IVRI from the ICAR Headquarter, New Delhi in respect of the clarification sought by IVRI on fixation of pay in the revised pay scales as per 7th CPC for the Scientists, IVRI drawing Non Practicing Allowance.

In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657796 ICAR vide letter F. No. FIN/9/7/2007-CDN(A&A) dated 04.01.2019 endorsed the Department of Expenditure DO letter F. No. 354/130/2018-TRU dated 19.04.2018 regarding exemption / concessional rate of GST on processed food products, agriculture machinery, food processing machinery, and agriculture R&D. In the said context, the Complainant has sought the following information:

1. Certified copies of all the payment vouchers/any other documents indicating the amount of tax which shall form part of the price at which such service is made, that were issued by the IVRI (a registered body under GST Act) in respect of the Office and Lab related works undertaken by the concerned Contractors at IVRI in the financial year 2017-18.

2. Name(s) and designation(s) of the officer(s) in the Administrative Section of IVRI who is/are responsible for issuance of payment vouchers/any other documents indicating the amount of tax which shall form part of the price at which such supply of goods/services is made.

3. Name(s) and designation(s) of the officer(s) in the Account & Audit Section of IVRI who is / are responsible for issuance of payment vouchers / any other documents indicating the amount of tax which shall form part of the price at which such supply of goods / services is made.

4. Copy of norms set by Public Authority/Director, IVRI for issuance of payment vouchers /any other documents indicating the amount of tax which shall form part of the price at which such supply of goods/services is made.

In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657829 The complainant has sought the following information:

1. Provide the designation of the IVRI's officer who is responsible to recover any over-payment (in respect of Dearness Allowance declared under the 7th CPC) made to the scientists working at IVRI during the period from 01.01.2016 to 30.06.2017.

2. Provide the rate of Dearness Allowance(DA) payable to the scientists (working at IVRI) along with the revised pay as on (i) 01.01.2016 (i.e. after pay fixation as per ICAR Letter F. No. 1(4)/2017 - Per.IV dated 27.03.2018) and (ii) as on 01.07.2017.

3. Details of action taken (till date) by the Finance and Accounts Section at IVRI to recover the excess amount (over-payment) that has been paid (if any) in the form of Dearness Allowance (at the rate declared under the7th CPC) from all 11 the scientists working at IVRI during the period from 01.01.2016 to 30.06.2017.

In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657939 The complainant has stated in second appeal that he is not satisfied with the information provided on point No. 4 of the RTI application, which is stated below. He has sought the following information in regard to the IVRI, Izatnagar letter No. F. 23-4583/2017-Pension dated 9th August 2019, through which it has been intimated that the Pensionary benefits in respect of Dr. Nityananda Das, who has retired on 31.07.2017, as per 7th CPC have already been revised vide IVRI's letter dated 08.10.2018. The revised PPO would be issued on receipt of the date of payment of difference of CVP from SF&AO, IGFRI, Jhansi.

4. Date when the authorized bank made the payment of revised pension to Dr. Nityananda Das, Ex Principal Scientist, who retired on 31.07.2017 .

In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/658054 The complainant has sought the following information:

1. Certified copy of the instruction/Order with regard to Briefcase Allowance that has been received by the IVRI Authority, Izatnagar from the ICAR, New Delhi in respect of the scientists working under ICAR system in accordance with the Gazette Notification of MoF, Deptt. of Expenditure Resolution No. 11- 1/2016-IC dated 6th July 2017.

2. Certified copy of the instruction/Order with regard to Family Planning Allowance(FAA) that has been received by the IVRI Authority, Izatnagar from the ICAR, New Delhi in respect of the scientists working under ICAR system in accordance with the Gazette Notification of MoF, Deptt. Of Expenditure Resolution No. 11-1/2016-IC dated 6th July 2017.

3. Certified copy of the instruction/Order with regard to Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) that has been received by the IVRI Authority, Izatnagar from the ICAR, New Delhi in respect of the scientists working under ICAR system in accordance with the Gazette Notification of MoF, Deptt. Of Expenditure Resolution No. 11-1/2016-IC dated 6th July 2017.

4. Certified copy of the instruction/Order with regard to High Altitude Allowance(HAA) that has been received by the IVRI Authority, Izatnagar from ICAR, New Delhi in respect of the scientists working under ICAR system in accordance with the Gazette Notification of MoF, Deptt. Of Expenditure Resolution No. 11-1/2016-IC dated 6th July 2017.

5. And other related information.

In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/658117 The complainant has sought the following information

1. Name and designation of competent authority at IVRI, Izatnagar who had approved that Dearness Allowance (at rate declared by GOI as per 7th Central Pay Commission, CPC) would be granted to all the scientists at IVRI, Izatnagar for the period between 01.01.2016 and 30.06.2017.

2. Certified copies of Office Orders on the basis of which the IVRI authority granted Dearness Allowance (at rate declared by GOI as per 7th CPC) to all the scientists at IVRI for the period between 01.01.2016 and 30.06.2017.

3. Copy of recommendation/remarks given by the concerned Finance & Account Officer, IVRI while examining the proposal for granting Dearness Allowance (at the rate declared by GOI as per 7th CPC) to scientists at IVRI for the period between 01.01.2016 and 30.06.2017.

4. Certified copy of the proposal / file noting /Note (if any), which was sent to ICAR Headquarter in respect of seeking permission for granting Dearness Allowance (at the rate declared by GOI as per 7th CPC) to scientists at IVRI for the period between 01.01.2016 and 30.06.2017.

In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/658157 The complainant has sought the following information:

1. Provide reference number(s) of all the relevant instruction(s), Order(s) etc. (issued by Government of India / ICAR, New Delhi from time to time) on the basis of which the Pension Authorization Unit, IVRI, Izatnagar, revised the pension of the appellant in the month of September, 2019 without considering the Non - Practicing Allowance (NPA) as part of his pay.

2. Designation of the competent authority at IVRI, Izatnagar who sanctioned revised pension of the appellant, which started from the month of September, 2019.

3. Certified copy of complete file noting wherein the revision of pension of the complainant was done by the Pension Authorization Unit, IVRI and payment of revised pension was made from the month of September, 2019.

In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/658355 The complainant in his second appeal has stated that he is not satisfied information provided on point Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 of the RTI application which are stated below:

2. With reference to the IVRI's letter No. F.23-4583/2017-Pension dated 06.10.2017, provide the certified copy of the complete file noting wherein it 13 was decided that the Dearness Allowance in respect of the complainant would be at the rate of 125% w.e.f. 01.09.2017.

3. With reference to the IVRI's letter No. F.23-4583/2017-Pension dated 06.10.2017, provide certified copies of all the Office Orders, Circulars, Notes etc on the basis of which the Pension Authorization Unit, IVRI decided that the Dearness Allowance in respect of the appellant would be at the rate of 125% w.e.f. 01.09.2017.

4. With reference to the IVRI's letter No. F.23-4583/2017-Pension dated 06.10.2017, provide certified copy of the ICAR's letter No. F.6-5/86-Cdn (A&A) dated 1.1.1988.

5. Certified copy of the letter of Ministry of Finance wherein it is mentioned that revision of DA component of Pension, would be done by the Pension Disbursing Bank as per revision of DR rates.

In file No. CIC/IVTRI/C/2020/600363 ICAR vide letter F. No. FIN/9/7/2007-CDN(A&A) dated 04.01.2019 endorsed the Department of Expenditure DO letter F.No.354/130/2018-TRU dated 19.04.2018 regarding exemption/concessional rate of GST on processed food products, agriculture machinery, food processing machinery, and agriculture R&D. The Department of Expenditure provide the list of such services (pertaining to agriculture), exempted under GST. In the said context, the Complainant has sought the following information:

1. Certified copies of all the Tax Invoices (under section 31 of CGST Act, 2017), which were submitted by all the concerned Contractors for undertaking Office and Lab related works at IVRI, Izatnagar (UP) in the financial year 2018-19.

2. Name(s) and designation(s) of the officers in the Administrative Section of IVRI, Izatnagar who is/are responsible for examination of the Tax Invoices under GST before any payment is made to the suppliers of goods/services.

3. Name(s) and designation(s) of the officers in the Finance Section at IVRI, Izatnagar who is/are responsible for examination of the Tax Invoices under GST before any payment is made to the suppliers of goods/ services.

4. Provide the norms set by the IVRI /Director, IVRI for processing the Tax Invoices submitted under GST at IVRI, Izatnagar.

5. Provide the information about power and duties of the Finance Officer(s) in respect of examination and processing of Tax Invoices submitted under GST at IVRI, Izatnagar.

In file No. CIC/ICARH/C/2020/666095 The complainant has sought the following information:

1. Certified copy of order for inclusion of Non- Practicing Allowance (NPA) for calculation of pension that was issued by the ICAR, with reference to 7th CPC to be used while authorization of pension in respect of retired ICAR Scientists.

2. Certified copy of the order for inclusion of NPA for calculation of pension (issued by the ICAR, with reference to 6th CPC) that was used while authorization of pension in respect of retired ICAR Scientists, who retired before 01/01/2016.

3. Certified copy of the order for inclusion of NPA for calculation of pension that was issued by the ICAR, with reference to 7th CPC to be used while authorization of pension in respect of retired technical staff, who were drawing NPA.

In file No. CIC/ICARH/C/2019/643658 The complainant in his complaint has stated that he is not satisfied with the information/documents provided to him in respect of query 2 of the RTI application, which is stated below:

2. Certified copy of the matter/note sheet portion regarding the issue of pay fixation of Scientist drawing NPA (which was forwarded for examination to the Internal Finance Division of the ICAR).

In file No. CIC/ICARH/C/2019/643767 The complainant in his complaint has stated that he is not satisfied with the information/documents provided to him in respect of query 1, 2 & 3 of the RTI application, which are stated below:

1. Intimate the date when the ICAR/DARE (Deptt. of Agricultural Research and Education) received the circular from Ministry of HRD/UGC regarding the subject: Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018.

2. Certified copy of relevant portion of regulation (titled Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018) which is applicable to the teachers working in Indian Agriculture Universities funded by the ICAR/DARE.

3. Certified copy of relevant portion of UGC regulation (titled Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018) which is applicable to the scientists working at ICAR and its institutions.

In file No. CIC/ICARH/C/2019/651656 In the Minutes of Senior Management Group Meeting held on 2nd April 2019, it is stated at Point No. 11 that Director (P) and Director (F) have been asked to examine the circular regarding admissibility of NPA, received from Ministry of Finance (MoF) and put up the same to the competent authority for decision making. In this regard the complainant has sought the following information:

1. The date when the Director (P) and Director (F), ICAR Headquarter started examining the circular regarding admissibility of NPA received from MoF.

2. The date when the Director (P) and Director (F), ICAR Headquarter completed examination of the circular regarding admissibility of NPA received from MoF.

3. The date when the Director (P) and Director (F), ICAR Headquarter submitted their examination report/recommendation to the competent authority, ICAR for decision taking.

4. Certified copy of the decision taken by the competent authority, ICAR on the admissibility of NPA.

5. And various other information/documents.

In file No. CIC/ICARH/C/2019/651728 The complainant has sought the following information:

1. Provide reference number(s) of all relevant ICAR orders/circulars guidelines etc. which were forwarded to the IGFRI Authority and other ICAR institutes in respect of revision of the pension (following the recommendations of 7th CPC) of the retired Scientists other than veterinary scientists drawing Non Practicing Allowance (NPA).

2. Provide reference number(s) of all relevant ICAR orders/circulars guidelines etc. which were forwarded to the IGFRI Authority and other ICAR institutes in respect of revision of the pension (following the recommendations of 7th CPC) of the retired veterinary scientists drawing Non Practicing Allowance (NPA).

3. Certified copies of complete files noting in respect of revision of the pension (following the recommendations of 7th CPC) of all the ICAR scientists who retired on or after 01/01/2016.

4. And various other information/documents.

In file No. CIC/ICARH/C/2019/651824 The complainant has sought the following information:

1. Designation of the officer at ICAR Headquarter, New Delhi who authorizes PAO/CPAO for payment of dearness relief on increased rates to pensioners.

2. Rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by the Public Authority or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions related to payment of DA to the scientists retired from both (i) the ICAR Headquarter and (ii) the research institutions under ICAR.

3. And various other information.

In file No. CIC/ICARH/C/2019/652066 The complainant has sought the following information:

1. Designation of the officer at ICAR Headquarter, New Delhi / ICAR Research Institute, who authorizes payment of both the (i) Dearness Allowance (ii) Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) on increased rates w.e.f.

01/07/2017 as per recommendation of 7th CPC to the scientists posted at both (i) ICAR Headquarter, New Delhi and (ii) the research institutions under ICAR.

2. Rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by the Public Authority or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions related to payment of both the (i) Dearness Allowance (ii) Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) on increased rates w.e.f. 01/07/2017 as per recommendation of 7th CPC to the scientists posted at both the (i) ICAR Headquarter, New Delhi and (ii) the research institutions under ICAR.

3. And various other information.

In file No. CIC/ICARH/C/2019/652353 The complainant has sought the following information/documents:

1. Certified copy of the ICAR Governing Body decision regarding implementation of recommendations of 7th CPC for pay fixation of the Scientists.

2. The designation of the officer(s) at ICAR who decided that the pay fixation of ICAR scientists would not be fixed as per the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016.

3. The details of the file noting on the basis of which the ICAR issued the letter F No. 1(4)/2017-Per.IV dated 27/03/2018 regarding revision of pay of scientists of ICAR.

4. And various other information/documents.

In file No.: CIC/ICARH/C/2019/655328 The complainant has sought the following information/documents:

1. Intimate the specific Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 or the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, which are applicable for the ICAR scientists w.e.f. 01/01/2016.

2. Rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by the ICAR or used by its employees for discharging its functions viz. revision of pay scale of the ICAR veterinary scientists (who are drawing Non-practicing Allowance in the 6th CPC) following revision of pay scale of Central Government employees on recommendation of 7th CPC.

In file no.: CIC/ICARH/C/2019/655840 The complainant has sought the following information/documents:

1. Certified copy of the office order on the basis of which, the ICAR authority approved/ granted Transport Allowance to the ICAR scientists for the month of May and June, 2018.

2. Certified copy of the office order on the basis of which, the ICAR authority approved/ granted Non-practicing Allowance (NPA) to the ICAR Veterinary Scientists for the month of May and June, 2018.

3. Certified copy of the office order on the basis of which, the ICAR authority approved/ granted Dearness Allowance in respect of the Non-

practicing Allowance (DA on NPA), which was granted to the ICAR Veterinary Scientists for the month of May and June, 2018.

In file no.: CIC/ICARH/C/2019/656487 The complainant in his complaint has stated that no information/document has been provided to him in respect of query no. 6 of the RTI application, which is stated below:

6. Certified copy of the office order/ circular/ note etc. wherein it has been mentioned that pending the decision of ICAR on Non- Practicing Allowance (NPA), the salary arrears (as accruing on account of pay revision as per 7th Pay recommendation) could not be paid to the Veterinary Scientists working at ICAR institutes (like IGFRI, Jhansi).

In file No.: CIC/ICARH/C/2019/656831 The complainant in his complaint has stated that the CPIO has not provided the desired information in respect of query no. 2,3,5 & 6 of the RTI application, which are stated below:

2. Name(s) and Designation(s) of the officer(s) who processed/examined the Ministry of HRD, Department of Higher Education Letter No. F.7-4/2018- U.II dated 20/08/2018 at the ICAR Headquarter, New Delhi.

3. Complete noting in respect of the processing/examination of the above said letter.

5. Certified copy of the decision (if any) which was taken after processing/examination of the above said letter.

6. Intimate whether the Financial Circular titled - Implementation of the recommendations of 7th CPC regarding allowances which was uploaded on the ICAR website on 23/10/2018 at 17.07 hrs, is applicable for all the ICAR Scientists.

In file no.: CIC/ICARH/C/2019/660433 The complainant has sought the following information:

1. Certified copies of all the relevant instruction(s), order(s), note(s) etc. (issued by Govt. of India/ ICAR, New Delhi from time to time) wherein it is stated that Pension Authorization Units under ICAR system can revise the pension (as per recommendation of 7th CPC) of the ICAR veterinary scientists (who are already drawing Non- Practicing Allowance under the 6th CPC) without considering the Non- Practicing Allowance (NPA) as part of their pay.

2. Certified copies of all relevant instruction(s), order(s), note(s) etc. (issued by Govt. of India/ ICAR, New Delhi), which were forwarded/ endorsed to all Pension Authorization Units under ICAR system for revision of pension (as per recommendation of 7th CPC) of the veterinary scientists who retired from the service on or after 01/01/2016 and were drawing Non- Practicing Allowance as on 31/12/2015 as per 6th CPC.

In file no.: CIC/ICARH/C/2020/665680 The complainant has sought the following information:

1. Entire correspondence (that has been / is being made in e-office and is produced / held in electronic form in ICAR computer during the period 01/07/2019 to 01/11/2019) regarding the matter in respect of pay fixation of Scientists drawing Non - Practicing Allowance, NPA (which was examined by the Personal - IV on 12/04/2019, thereafter the Director on Special Duty asked (the concerned officer) on 22/04/2019 to discuss. Sh. Pramod Kumar, US wrote on 01/07/2017 that (he) discussed with Director (SD) and Director (P) and advised the concerned officer to re-submit as discussed.

2. Complete details of the day to day action taken by both (i) Internal Finance Division and (ii) Personnel Division of ICAR (during the period between 02/07/2019 to the date of providing of information by CPIO) in respect of examination of the matter regarding pay fixation of Scientists drawing Non- Practicing Allowance.

In file no.: CIC/ICARH/C/2020/665819 The complainant has sought the following information:

1. Total Amount of pension that was paid to Dr. K.L. Khurana (Ex-Principal Scientist, who retired from the ICAR Headquarter, New Delhi in the financial year 2018-19) for the month of (i) April, 2019 and (ii) Oct, 2019.

2. Certified copies of the Pension Slips for the month of (i) April, 2019 and

(ii) Oct, 2019 in respect of Dr. K.L. Khurana (Ex-Principal Scientist, who retired from the ICAR Headquarter, New Delhi in the financial year 2018-

19).

In file no.: CIC/IGFRI/C/2019/603557 The complainant in his complaint has stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided to him on query No. 3 of the RTI application, which is stated below:

3. The details of the formalities (if any) that are to be followed for payment of arrears (full or part payment) which have been paid to the retired IGFRI Scientists after revision of their pay scale as per 7th Pay Commission recommendation.

In file no.: CIC/IGFRI/C/2019/656382 The complainant has sought the following information/documents:

1. Provide reference number(s) of all relevant ICAR orders/ circulars guidelines etc. which were used/ followed by IGFRI Authority while revising the pension (following the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission) of all the retired IGFRI scientists.

2. Certified copies of complete file noting in respect of revision of the pension (following the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission) of all the IGFRI scientists who retired on or after 01/01/2016.

3. Intimate the date when the IGFRI Authority revised the pension (following the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission) in respect of Dr. P.K. Saxena, Ex-Principal Scientist and Dr. N.K Saha, Ex- Principal Scientist, IGFRI.

4. And various other information/documents Grounds for Complaints The CPIO has not provided satisfactory information and has asked the complainant to inspect the records.

Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:

The complainant submitted rejoinders for all the above mentioned complaint cases via e-mail.

In respect of case no. 655120, the complainant in his written submissions has stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on points no. 1, 2(i), 2(ii), 3 & 4. On point no.1, the CPIO had stated that the information is readily available on their website, however, he tried his best to find the requisite information in the given Link, but despite that he was not able to locate the requisite information. With respect to point no 2(i), he submitted that the CPIO had given an irrelevant reply as his query was on the "Revision of pension" of a particular category of retired scientists but the CPIO twisted the query and said no order /Circulars have been received from ICAR regarding "NPA of pensioner". The two phrases "Revision of pension" and "NPA of pensioner" are not the same. Thus the CPIO provided wrong and misleading information on this point and for point 2(ii), he has not sought any voluminous information as 21 stated by the CPIO in his reply. He also contested the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act for points no. 3 & 4.

In respect of case no. 655136 & 655148, the complainant in his written submissions has stated that he is not satisfied with the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(j) as the CPIO misunderstood the section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the information related to the pension of Dr. A. K.L. Sharma and Dr. S.N. Sarkar does not come to knowledge of the IVRI authority as a result of disclosure by these officers or other persons who give that information in confidence and with complete faith, integrity and fidelity. Hence, the secrecy of such information shall not be maintained, thus, it will not come within the ambit of fiduciary capacity.

In respect of case no.657047, the complainant in his written submissions has stated that the reply of CPIO is factually incorrect as his queries are related to the period when his pension was not revised as per 7th CPC whereas the CPIO's reply is relevant to the post revision of pension. Further, the reason given by the CPIO that consequent upon revision of Pension, the revision of Dearness Relief as per rate approved by MoF, GoI, is done by respective banks through which pension is being availed, is also not correct as all the Government Orders related to Grant of Dearness Relief to Central Government pensioners/family pensioners at a revised rate stipulate a condition that it will be the responsibility of the pension disbursing authorities, including the nationalized banks, etc. to calculate the quantum of DR payable in each individual case.

In respect of case no. 657528, the complainant in his written submissions has stated that no reply has been provided to him till date.

In respect of case no. 657796, the complainant in his written submissions has stated that the reply of the CPIO is not proper as for most of the points, the CPIO had stated that information is not available with them and the same may be obtained from the concerned units/Divisions / sections. The CPIO hence failed to take the assistance of the concerned section / officer as mandated under the provisions of the RTI Act.

In respect of case no. 658355, the complainant in his written submissions has stated that misleading information was provided to him in respect of points no. 2, 3 , 4 & 5 of the RTI application.

In respect of case no. 666095, the complainant in his written submissions has stated that the reply of the CPIO has no relevance to the information sought by him. The RTI query at Points No. 1, 2, & 3 were purposely misinterpreted by linking these queries with the administrative decision that will be taken in future in respect of the issues related to Non-Practicing Allowance for the scientists in the Council. However, nowhere in his RTI application, he had requested to communicate the ICAR decision taken on NPA issue. His queries were related to the office orders for those matters/events which already occurred in the ICAR.

In respect of case Nos. 657256, 657282, 657408, 657409, 657655, 657657, 657747, 657829, 658054, 658117, 658157 and 600363, the complainant submitted that the reply of the CPIO giving him an opportunity to inspect the documents was completely improper as Section 4(4) of the RTI Act says that all materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the CPIO, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that travelling of more than 300 km by train or bus by a senior citizen like him who is 65 years old to fetch information consisting 10 to 15 pages is the most effective method of communication and easily accessible and economic way of providing information. He further submitted that the condition of inspection was nothing but a ploy / alibi to deny information as this condition was imposed unilaterally on him by both the CPIO & the FAA, without considering that such inspection may cause detriment and mental agony to him.

In respect of case no. 643658 the complainant submitted that both the CPIO and the FAA had not provided him information in respect of point no. 2 of the RTI application. He further submitted that the reason given by the CPIO cannot be the valid ground for denying the certified copy of the matter/note-sheet portion regarding the matter in respect of pay fixation of Scientists drawing 23 NPA. He requested for conduct of an enquiry u/s 18 and imposition of penalty on the concerned officers u/s 20 of the RTI Act.

In respect of case no. 643737 the complainant submitted that the denial of information sought on points no. 1 to 3 u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act was not proper. In case the CPIO was not in possession of the information sought he should have categorically replied stating the same.

In case no. 651656 he contested the reply of the CPIO on all the points i.e. 1 to

6. He further submitted that his RTI application was related to examination of the circular regarding admissibility of NPA received from MoF.

In respect of case no. 651728 he contested the reply in respect of points no. 1,3,4 and 5 of the RTI application. He submitted that he tried his best to locate the information sought but could not locate the same on the website. He further contested the applicability of Sec 7(9) and submitted that information as available in the format should have been given.

In respect of cases no. 651824 and 652066 he submitted that an online reply was received on 30.09.2019 after filing of his complaint to the Commission. He contested the FAA order too and the delay in the CPIO's reply.

In case no. 652353 he submitted that he had not received any reply and hence the present complaint was filed.

In case no. 655328 he contested the reply in respect of points no. 1 &2 of the RTI application. He contested the denial u/s 2(f) in respect of point no.1 and in respect of point no. 2 he submitted that even though Sec 4 disclosure was made that is not an exemption clause.

In case no. 655840 he contested the reply in respect of point no.2 and submitted that the same is being tossed from one CPIO to another CPIO.

In case no. 656487 he contested the reply in respect of point no.6 and submitted that the same is being tossed from one CPIO to another CPIO.

In case no. 656831 he contested the reply in respect of points no. 5 & 6 of the RTI application and submitted that no final reply was given to him till date.

In case no. 660433 he submitted that no reply was given in respect of points no. 1 and 2 of the RTI application. He submitted that his queries were related to revision of pension of retired veterinary scientists without considering the benefits of NPA.

In case no. 665680 he contested the reply in respect of point no. 2 of the RTI application. He pointed out that the day to day action taken report was not given.

In case no. 665819 he contested the reply of the CPIO and the FAA in respect of points no. 1 and 2 of the RTI application. In this matter he contested the CIC order dated 27.01.2020 stating that his rejoinder was not taken into consideration.

In case no. 603557 he contested the reply in respect of point no. 3 of the RTI application, which was denied by the CPIO stating the same as not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act.

In case no. 656382 he contested that the reply was not correct on point no. 3 and the same was sent via e-mail after the CIC hearing notice was served. The CPIO submitted that a reply was given on 09.12.2019 in which 8 points were replied. The copy of the reply was sent via e-mail for the Commission's perusal as the same was not available on record.

The complainant in addition to the above written submissions submitted that there are four general issues in respect of all his cases, irrespective of the fact whether the matter is a complaint or a second appeal, towards which he wanted to draw the attention of the Commission. These four issues are:

1. The CPIO has failed to give the proper URL of their website due to which he was not in a position to locate the desired information on the website and according to him even if the Commission would also visit their page, the same problem will be faced.

2. The issue of NPA was not resolved despite the fact that it was being paid to other scientists. The reply given by the CPIO that the matter is under consideration is misleading and he is aggrieved as no final reply was given to him.

3. The replies of the CPIO in some cases were not proper as the information was not given in the form it was originally sought by him. He stated that it is possible that the information may not be readily available in the form sought, however, this alone is not a ground to deny information. The RTI Act acknowledges change of form of information in the course of disclosure.

Section 7(9) of the RTI Act provides for furnishing information in the manner sought as far as practicable. This implies that the CPIO cannot shy away from his statutory duty of furnishing information in the form sought except when the disclosure may involve expending of substantial resources of the public authority.

4.The opportunity of inspection given to him was also not proper as the CPIO has unilaterally asked him to inspect the relevant documents as under the provisions of the RTI Act, all material shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the CPIO, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that travelling of more than 300 km by train or bus by a senior citizen like him who is 65 years old to fetch information consisting of 10 to 15 pages is the most effective method of communication and easily accessible and economic way of providing information.In this regard, he relied on the CIC Decision passed in File No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000044 dated 07.03.2017 to substantiate the fact that there is no separate provision under the RTI Act to ask the appellant for inspection of the documents unilaterally. The selective extracts of the CIC decision are reproduced below:

"The appellant submitted that he had sought certified copy of the relevant rules/guidelines etc., under the RTI Act, 2005 which allows/empowers the CIC to direct the appellant to inspect file(s) for getting the information. However, as per the Department of Personnel and Training's (DoPT's) response dated 21.04.2014 in respect to another RTI application 03.03.2014, there is no such instructions/ rules/guidelines issued by DoPT which empowers the Commission to direct the appellant to inspect the records without the same being requested by the appellant.

The respondent submitted that the original RTI application was not received in the RTI Cell of CIC and a copy of the RTI application was received with the first appeal filed by the appellant. The FAA vide order dated 26 20.06.2014 had directed the CPIO to provide a response in respect of point no. 4 of the RTI application and in compliance with the same, the appellant was informed vide letter dated 14.11.2014 that there are no separate guidelines/ rules except what is available in the RTI Act 2005."

The CPIOs reiterated the replies given to each of the RTI applications as per availability of records. Smt. Sandevan submitted that a High level Committee was constituted for considering the issue of NPA and the same has referred to Ministry of Finance.

Shri P.P. Rawat, AAO & the PIO in addition to reiterating the contents of the replies gave the background of the case and submitted that when the appellant retired from service, his pension was settled as per the 6TH CPC. That time also NPA was given only to such scientists who were having BVSc degree. After the implementation of the 7th CPC, the Ministry of Finance issued an order No. 12/2/2016-EIIIA dated 07.07.2017 whereby the benefit of NPA was made conditional, depending on the fulfilment of four conditions mentioned in the order. Since the complainant was not fulfilling the said criteria, he was not given the benefit of NPA. He further submitted that vide their letter dated 22.11.2019, the complainant was given complete information about his DA and his pension disbursal sheet was also supplied to him after getting the same from the concerned bank.

Shri Debashis Moitra while adding to the submissions made by She S.S. Rawat stated that only 07 scientists have been given the benefit of NPA. The pension of the complainant was calculated without NPA as he was not satisfying the conditions enumerated in the order issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 07.07.2017. The concept of NPA is a new concept and was not there before 1990 and hence it was not included in the pension benefits or service benefits. The issue is still under consideration before a High Level Committee and is in its final stage. As and when the matter will attain any finality, wide publicity will be given so that all the interested parties can know the decision.

Observations:

Taking into consideration that the present bunch of cases are complaints u/s 18 of the RTI Act and the applicant also is seeking relief in the form of imposition of penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act to the CPIO, the Commission heard 27 all the above listed cases, perused the rejoinders of the complainant in each of the cases and the replies of the respondent. After thoroughly going through each of the cases, the bench is constrained to state that the present cases are revolving around one or two limited and similar issues. It appears that the complainant is aggrieved with the pay fixation of Scientists and the failure to include NPA in the revision of the pension given to him after the implementation of the 7th CPC, delay in the payment of gratuity amount and through all his above listed RTI applications, he is trying to redress his grievance in the garb of seeking information under the RTI Act through these multiple complaints which are often overlapping with each other. The Commission finds no malafide intent on the part of the CPIO as it can be seen that in almost all the cases, replies have been given by the CPIO and considering the fact that the complainant had filed multiple numbers of RTI applications and in each of his applications, voluminous information was being sought. The Commission is constrained to state that the complainant has resorted to filing of repeated RTI applications which have generated from one or two issues, and therefore the Commission finds no scope to further intervene in these matters.

The complainant has misconceived the role of the Central Information Commission and it is apparent from his submissions in each and every case that he is trying to create a fear among the CPIOs and the FAAs by pressing for penalty against them. The CIC is an adjudicating body to give relief only in such cases where it is found that the relevant information is not provided to the applicant. However, in the present cases, the CPIO and the FAA cannot be expected to satisfy the complainant, when the complainant is not in search of information but only settling his service grievances against the department by filing multiple , vexatious, repetitive RTI applications followed by appeals and complaints. All the complaints are inter-related in some manner or the other and are clearly indicative of absolute misuse of the provisions of the RTI Act.

Among many other submissions, the complainant through his written submissions has brought it to the notice of the Commission that in many of his RTI applications, the CPIO has unilaterally asked him to inspect the relevant documents which was not a proper approach of the CPIO as under the provisions of the RTI Act, all material shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective 28 method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the CPIO, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that travelling of more than 300 km by train or bus by a senior citizen like him who is 65 years old to fetch information consisting of 10 to 15 pages is the most effective method of communication and easily accessible and economic way of providing information. He has further submitted that the condition of inspection was nothing but a ploy/alibi to deny information as this condition was imposed unilaterally on him by both the CPIO & the FAA, without considering that such inspection may cause detriment and mental agony to him. The Commission concurs with the submissions of the complainant that if at all any opportunity of inspection is to be given, both the parties should mutually agree and take into consideration all other factors like the feasibility, cost effectiveness, age factor of the applicant etc. However, the Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that the complainant has not filed only one RTI application, but more than 45 RTI applications within the same time period and for the sake of argument, even if the submissions of the complainant are accepted that it was not reasonable or feasible for him to travel 300 kms for getting 10 to 15 pages of information, however those 10 to 15 pages were confined to one RTI application which were to be collated and collected from many files dealing with the subject matter and when the same situation is applied to 45 of his RTI applications, the information undoubtedly becomes voluminous. Further, the nature of the information sought by the complainant was revolving around one or two limited issues but he has sought each and every information about the revision of his pension consequent upon the implementation of the 7th CPC, and other related issues. Under such circumstances, the best possible way to address the issue of the complainant was to give him an opportunity to inspect all the relevant records available with the respondent organisation, so that the complainant may himself see what all information is required by him.

Here it is pertinent to draw reference of the complainant to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Prakash Manubhai Patel vs. Chief Information Commissioner, Special Civil Application No. 16480 of 2014 dated 14.09.2014 wherein reliance was placed on observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya 29 Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009. The relevant para is extracted below:

"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."

In view if the above mentioned judicial dicta, the Commission does not find any flaw in the replies of the CPIO offering the appellant an opportunity to inspect the relevant records.

Having said so, the Commission opines that the complainant is only exhausting the resources of the public authority as well as the Commission. Instead he should approach the appropriate forum of law or the competent Court for redressal of his service grievances. Moreover, the CPIOs present during the hearing tried to explain the main issue of NPA to the complainant for his satisfaction and also indicated that even now the matter is under consideration and has not attained finality. Therefore, the Commission finds no merit in the complaints listed above.

Decision:

Having heard the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of the relevant case records including the rejoinders filed by the applicant, it is noted that on the one hand, the complainant is aggrieved that the requisite 30 information was not provided to him on many points of his RTI applications and where provided the same was delayed, however, on the other hand, what is apparent is that the complainant has undoubtedly filed multiple RTI applications with the same organisation which more or less cover the same issue/issues. Even if the applicant has a justified grievance, the fact remains that the manner adopted by him shows otherwise. All this exercise on the part of the complainant i.e. filing more than 45 RTI applications within a period of 06 months, not inspecting the documents when an opportunity was given to him, etc, negates the very purpose of the RTI Act. In other words, even if the complainant was having a reasonable cause in filing these RTI applications according to him, the fact remains that the means adopted by the complainant speaks volumes of his ignorance of the spirit of the RTI Act. As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI applicants to not transgress the spirit of the RTI Act by clogging the functioning of public authorities with such repetitive, cumbersome and implausible RTI applications. In case any such repeated/similar second appeals or complaints are filed before the Commission, the same shall be dismissed in limine without any hearing or any further reference to the complainant/appellant. The CPIO is also advised to deal with any future RTI Applications of the applicant on the same subject matter or any related service grievances emanating from this subject in accordance with the aforesaid observations of the Commission.

With the above observations, the complaint(s) are disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णतस या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 31 ANNEXURE S. No. File No. 1 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/655120 2 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/655136 3 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/655148 4 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657047 5 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657256 6 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657282 7 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657408 8 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657409 9 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657528 10 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657655 11 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657657 12 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657747 13 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657796 14 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657829 15 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/657939 16 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/658054 17 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/658117 18 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/658157 19 CIC/IVTRI/C/2019/658355 20 CIC/IVTRI/C/2020/600363 21 CIC/ICARH/C/2020/666095 22 CIC/ICARH/C/2019/643658 23 CIC/ICARH/C/2019/643767 24 CIC/ICARH/C/2019/651656 25 CIC/ICARH/C/2019/651728 26 CIC/ICARH/C/2019/651824 27 CIC/ICARH/C/2019/652066 28 CIC/ICARH/C/2019/652353 29 CIC/ICARH/C/2019/655328 30 CIC/ICARH/C/2019/655840 31 CIC/ICARH/C/2019/656487 32 CIC/ICARH/C/2019/656831 33 CIC/ICARH/C/2019/660433 34 CIC/ICARH/C/2020/665680 35 CIC/ICARH/C/2020/665819 36 CIC/IGFRI/C/2019/603557 37 CIC/IGFRI/C/2019/656382 32

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission