Central Information Commission
Ramesh Chander vs Controller General Of Defence Accounts ... on 11 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/INAVY/A/2024/605319/CGDAC
Ramesh Chander .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o the Principal Controller
of Defence Accounts (Pension),
Draupadighat, Allahabad - 211014 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.08.2025
Date of Decision : 08.08.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.09.2023
CPIO replied on : 08.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 11.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.09.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"I am an Indian Citizen. Kindly provide information relating to Note No.4 of my PPO No. 5003232019 issued by your office
01. Note no.4 of the above PPO states that "Revision of special pension may be done by specific order in future."Page 1 of 5
02. Was the above note made based on any regulations or rules or by any other orders of any competent authority or govt instructions or Court Orders.
03. If the answer to query above 02 is yes, kindly provide a copy of the said regulations/rules or orders of the competent authority or govt instructions or Court Ordersaaa, which states that the PPOs of special Pensioners to be issued with such noting as per para 01 above.
04. In the absence of such orders/rules/instructions, does PCDA has any discretion powers with regards to such noting in pension payment orders. If so, kindly provide the copies of orders/rules under which such discretionary powers if any allowed.
05. In case the above noting was unauthorized, Name, designation and address of Nodal Officer designated to receive my grievance and decide the matter for removal of the unauthorized noting in my PPO.
13. Name, designation of head of vigilance department, his address, email ID and phone/mobile number to whom complaint can be lodged by me against your office."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 08.11.2023 stating as under:
"Point No. 1 to 5- In this regard, it is intimated that your PPO for special pension was notified on the basis of MoD, GOI, Department of Ex- servicemen Welfare D(Pension/Legal) letter No. 4(10)/2017-D(Pen/Legal) dated 22/10/2018 and in compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 27/09/2018. Since, your special pension PPO was granted considering the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence Notes No. 4 was entered into PPO as 'Revision of special pension may be done by specific order, in future Point No. 6- The Chief Vigilence Officer for Defence Account Department is Shri Rajesh Chandra, IDAS, Jt CGDA. Address is Olo CGDA, Ulan Batar Road, Palam, New Delhi-110010.
Telephone No. 20893014 and email ID: [email protected]"
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Page 2 of 54. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 30.07.2025 (copy marked to the Appellant) has been filed by Shri Akhilesh Garg, DCDA/CPIO is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"1. That, the appellant through his RTI application dt. 27-09-2023 had desired informations about note 4 mentioned in the PPO which states that "Revision of special pension may be done by specific order in future."
2. That, his application was responded to by the then CPIO point wise vide letter bearing No. AN/RTI/3755/RC/2023 dt. 08-11-2023 stating that the PPO was notified on the basis of MoD GoI Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare D(Pension/Legal) dated 22/10/2018 and in compliance of Hon'ble supreme court order dt. 27/09/2018. Since the special pension was granted considering the order of Hon'ble supreme court and in the ibid order, insructions for further pension revision was not mentioned. Therefore, the note 4 was incorporated in the PPO as" Revision of special pension may be done by specific order in future.".
3. That, the appellant had filed First Appeal dt. 03-11-2023 expressing dissatisfaction with the reply.
4. That, his Appeal was responded vide letter no. AN/RTI/4428/RC/2023 dated 11/12/2023. In addition to the same, it was also conveyed by the CPIO that opportunity of first appeal under section 19(1) of the RTI Act will remain available for the appellant in case of dis-satisfaction from the response of CPIO.
5. That, the appellant had again filed First Appeal dt. 11-12-2023 expressing dissatisfaction with the reply.
6. That, his Appeal was responded vide letter no. AN/RTI/5166/RC/2023 dated 06/03/2025 by the First Appellate Authority.
7. The CIC Registration number CIC/INAVY/A/2024/605319/CGDAC dated 18.07.2025 was again examined and it is observed that multiple CIC cases has already been responded on similar matter by this office. One of them that also fits to this case is enclosed (letter no. वीकृ त अनभ ु ाग / IX/RTI-
1263/2025 dated 11/07/2025). CIC has already given decision on the similar matter in multiple cases which can be seen on official website of CIC. One of Page 3 of 5 the cases is CIC Registration no. CIC/CGDAC/A/2024/605423 in which Appellant was Shri Sain Das Mehra and decision dated is 25/07/2025. As such, the appellant has been duly responded to by the then CPIO and requisite information as available in the office has been provided. CIC has also given decision on similar matter in multiple cases. 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: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Garg, DCDA/CPIO present through video conference.
6. Proof of having served a copy of second appeal on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 09.02.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
7. The Respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission stated that reply in the instant case has already been provided to the Appellant. Further, identical/similar case has already been decided by this Bench bearing case No. CIC/CGDAC/A/2024/605423 case titled "Shri Sain Dass Mehra v. CPIO, CGDA"
decided on 25.07.2025 with no further directions. Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the records and considering the submissions tendered by the Respondent observes that similar Appeals has already been heard and adjudicated by this bench vide case File No. CIC/CGDAC/A/2024/605423 case titled "Sain Dass Mehra v. CPIO, PCDA" decided on 25.07.2025 with the following observations:
"...7.The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, noted that the CPIO has furnished all relevant and available information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the Page 4 of 5 averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. The submissions of the respondent are taken on record.
8.The Appellant has not brought any material on record to indicate that the information provided is false, misleading, or incomplete. The queries raised are mostly in the nature of seeking clarification or interpretation, which does not qualify as "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Further, the inclusion of Note No. 4 in the PPO has been adequately justified by citing applicable Ministry and judicial directions. The grievance component of the application has also been addressed, and the Appellant has been appropriately guided to the Record Office for further action, if necessary.
9.In view of the above, the Commission finds that reply given by the Respondent is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act and intervention of the Commission is not warranted in this matter."
9. The ratio of the above said order holds good for the instant case as well. Moreover, the Commission has no power to review its own order on the identical subject under the RTI Act. Hence, no relief can be granted in this matter.
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 (Pension), Draupadighat, Allahabad - 211014 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)