Central Information Commission
Devendra Prasad vs Controller General Of Defence Accounts ... on 27 September, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CGDAC/A/2023/129398
Devendra Prasad .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/O Controller of Defense Accounts,
Pay Account Office (ORs) EME,
Secunderabad - 500015. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.09.2024
Date of Decision : 26.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.05.2023
CPIO replied on : 18.05.2023
First appeal filed on : 19.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 19.06.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.07.2023
Page 1 of 8
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.05.2023 seeking the following information:
1. After OPTFIX, I got my admissible emoluments in Mar 2022, and the date of the next yearly increment is fixed to 01 Jul 2022. In Jul 2022, 1 did not get any increment, and the date of the next increment shifted to 01 Jul 2023. PAO EME clarified in reply that you would get an increment from 01 Jan 2023, but still, I did not get any increment. Now my juniors are getting more pay than me. My Basic Pay in March 2022 is Rs 42,300/-
which is still the same as in Apr 2023, where is my yearly increment.
2. I got 2 Transfer grant. One on 10 Mar 2019, when I moved to UN Mission and, second on 06 Jan 2021, when I returned from UN Mission. PAO have already credited admissible amount to my IRLA. In the month of Mar 2023 PAO EME deducted the amount of Rs 61,600/- for both of Transfer Grants.
Please specify the reason why I am not getting yearly increment and why my both transfer grants have been deducted or credit the admissible amount to the IRLA.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.05.2023 stating as under:
With reference to your RTI application cited above, it is intimated that, your yearly increment has been adjusted in the month of 05/2023. The same will be reflected in the MPS of 05/2023. Regarding Transfer grant, It is not admissible on deputation to UNMISSION. The same has been canceled by the unit.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 19.06.2023, held as under.
1. It is intimated that you have been posted to 888010 with POSIN dt.
05.01.2021 but the transfer grant has been published with dt. 06.01.2021. Since the date of POSIN is 05.01.2021 and the transfer grant is published after due date (which is not tallying), system has recovered the TFRGTH for POSIN to 88B010 as there is no corresponding POSIN.Page 2 of 8
2. TFRGTH for dt. 10.03.2019 initially admitted and recovered as the same is not admissible for moving to UNMISSION as per Para II(ii)(g) of GOI, MoD order letter No. 17(21)/2006/D(GS-1), dated 24th August, 2009 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Mr. A.P. Srinivasan, Asst. Accounts Defence Officer/CPIO along with Mr. Vishal Sharma, Accounts Officer present through video-conference.
A written submission dated 09.09.2024 filed by the CPIO is taken on record, contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
Query of RTI application dated 05.05.2023 Reply furnished by the CPIO dated 15.07.2022
1. Information Sought for yearly increment: Yearly increment has been After OPTFIX adjustment he is not getting adjusted in the month of yearly increment and asking for yearly 05/2023. The same will be increment. reflected in the MPS OF 05/2023.
2. Information Sought for Non-adjustment Transfer Grant (TFRGTH) is not of TFRGTH: admissible on deputation to UN Two Transfer Grant (TFRGTH), one on Mission.
10.03.2019, when moved to UN Mission and second on 06.01.2021, when returned from UN Mission. The appellant mentioned that PAO have already credited admissible amount to his IRLA. In the month of Mar 2023, PAO EME deducted the amount of Rs.61600/- for both Transfer Grant.
Query of RTI First Appeal dated Reply furnished by the First Appellate 19.05.2023 Authority dated 19.06.2023
1. Information Sought for Non- He was posted to 88B010 with POSIN is adjustment TFRGTH: 05.01.2021 and the Transfer Grant is As per PAO EME reply Transfer published after due date i.e. Grant is not admissible on 06.01.2021(which is not tallying), system Page 3 of 8 deputation to UN Mission. this has recovered the Transfer In grant for regard refer the Gol, MoD Policy POSIN to 88B010 as there is not letter No. 17/(21)/2006/D(GS-I) corresponding POSIN. After rectification dated 24 Aug 2009. of date by the unit of TFRGTH, the same has was already adjusted in 08/2023.
Regarding TFRGTH for dated 10.03.2019 initially admitted and recovered as the same is not admissible for moving to UN Mission in terms of Gol, MoD Policy letter No. 17/(21)/2006/D(GS-I) dated 24 Aug 2009.
2nd Appeal preferred by Appellant The queries raised/sought by the addressed to Hon'ble CIC New appellant are of grievance nature. From Delhi vide file No. the submission made above, it may be CIC/CGDAC/A/2023/129398 dated seen that every information sought for by 09.09.2024 has been received in the Appellant/Complainant has already this office on dated 18.09.2024 been furnished to him by CPIO and the First Appellate Authority. As such, Hon'ble CIC may kindly be pleased to dismiss the instant 2nd Appeal without any further cognizance. And for this the Respondent shall ever pray.
Respondent while reiterating the contents of averred written submission stated that available information has already been provided to the appellant. As regards the plea of appellant for non-receipt of transfer grant, he apprised the Commission that since no part II order was issued regarding his joining of UN mission after his posting to Indian Army, HQ from EME records, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to transfer grant from the Respondent Public Authority, as such.
Appellant, during hearing reiterated the contents of RTI application and pleaded that neither satisfactory reply has been provided by the respondent nor his transfer grants were remitted to him as per the entitlement. He prayed the Commission to intervene in the matter.
Upon conclusion of hearing, the Appellant filed a written submission dated 24.09.2024 wherein he inter alia pleaded as under:
"SUBJECT: SUBMISSION REGARDING TRANSFER GRANT ON DEPLOYMENT IN UN MISSION Page 4 of 8 Respected Sir,
1. In response to my 1st appeal, the CPIO, PAO EME vide their letter No RTI/2064/2023- 24/A/31 dt 19 Jun 202 clearly quoted the reference of Para No II (ii) (g) of GOI of MoD (Army) letter No. 17(21)/2006/D(GS-1) dated 24 Aug 2009 which clearly stated that to be eligible for the Transfer Grant upon deployment in a UN Mission, the individual must undertake travel to another station. I have duly complied with this requirement, having been transferred from Secunderabad (Telangana) to Delhi.
2. However, during the hearing on 24th September 2024, the PAO EME has now raised another issue the Part II Order of my posting. In this regard, I wish to submit that I was the only individual from the Corps of EME selected in the year 2018 to serve as a Staff Officer for deployment in the UN Mission after passing pan Indian Army exam. Consequently, I was posted out from Secunderabad to Delhi for pre-deployment formalities.
3. It is important to mention that there is no specific unit in Delhi responsible for managing the documentation of personal deployed individually to the UN Mission. However, when an entire regiment/battalion is deployed, regiment firstly located in Khanpur or Manesar Camp in Delhi then that regiment assumes responsibility for the documentation and pre- induction procedures for all personnel. To streamline the documentation of a Staff Officer deployed on an individual basis, the previous unit retains the officer under its supernumerary strength until their de-induction from the UN Mission. Individual never return to the same unit and have to be posted out to new unit.
4. Moreover, I had to vacate my Government Married Accommodation in Secunderabad as the EME Records (my unit that time) did not extend the occupancy of my quarter, citing my posting to the UN Mission as the reason. Consequently, I was forced to relocate my family during the mid- session of my child's schooling. This fulfil the conditions of a posted-out individual, justifying my entitlement to the Transfer Grant. It is the reason that my entitlement to the Transfer Grant should not be denied.
5. Other personnel from the Corps of EME who have been regularly deployed on UN Missions have received their Transfer Grants without any objections from the PAO EME. It is also pertinent to highlight that all my colleagues from other regiments who were deployed with me on the same UN Mission have already received their emoluments."Page 5 of 8
Per contra, respondent has also filed a written submission dated 24.09.2024 with a copy marked to the appellant by stating as under:
"...(ii) CIC notice file No. CIC/CGDAC/A/2023/129398 dated 09.09.2024. With reference to letter/notice cited above, the appellant is asking in 2nd Appeal for adjustment of TFRGTH on 10.03.2019 (EME Records Part II order No. 0/0149/008 dated 22.03.2021), which is not admissible the same as per Para II.(ii) (g) of Gol, MoD letter No. 17(21)/2006/D(GS-I) dated 24.08.2009 (copy enclosed) as he was posted to EME Record on 30.03.2016 (POSIN Part II order No. 0/0288/001 dated 11.05.2016) and went for the Deputation on UN Mission on 22.06.2019 from EME Records (TFRDEP vide Part II order No. 0/0278/003 dated 22.04.2019) from the same unit.
2. The above individual has written in his 2 appeal that before going to UN Mission he moved to Army HQ Delhi from EME Records. But no Posting Order (POSIN Part II order) received yet to grant the Transfer Grant (TFRGTH). Without Posting order TFRGTH is not admissible in audit (refer Appendix "J").
For information with reference to above subject, CIC is asking that who will pay the Transfer Grant to the above appellant on deputation to UN Mission. In this regard it is requested to clarify and give the suitable reply to the above individual directly under intimation to this office that he is eligible for TFRGTH or not. If he is eligible than who will pay for the same. Reply may please be forwarded with the appropriate authority issued by the MoD."
Contents of Para II. (ii) (g) of Gol, MoD letter No. 17(21)/2006/D(GS-I) dated 24.08.2009 are reproduced below:
"II. (ii) Deputation of Military Observers (MILOBs) in UN Missions:
xxx Joining Time. Deputationist (s) will be entitled to Joining Time Composite Transfer Grant as admissible to Indian Army Officers as per rules contained in relevant Defence Travel Regulations. However, CTG is granted only if the officer is posted to another station than the one he earlier left from for the mission."
Decision:
Page 6 of 8The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that as far as RTI Application is concerned appropriate response has been provided by the CPIO vide their letters dated 18.03.2023, 19.05.2023 and 24.09.2024 as the provisions of the RTI Act.
It also appears during the hearing that the Appellant is harbouring his grievance alleged non-receipt of Transfer Grant on deployment in UN Mission by the Respondent Public Authority which cannot be resolved under the mandate of the RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other Page 7 of 8 than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
(Emphasis Supplied) In view of the above, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Controller of Defence Accounts, No. 1, Staff Road, Secunderabad - 500009.Page 8 of 8
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)