Central Information Commission
Hemveer Nehara vs Ministry Of Defence on 20 February, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
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 No.:- CIC/DODEF/A/2022/605285 +
CIC/DODEF/A/2022/605976
In the matter of:
Hemveer Nehara
... Appellant
VS
1. Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate of Personal Services,
Air Headquarters (Vayu Bhawan),
Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110 011
2. Central Public Information Officer,
Air Headquarters, Dte. of Air Veterans,
Subroto Park, New Delhi - 110010.
...Respondents
File Nos. : 605285 605976 RTI application filed on : 08/08/2021 09/08/2021 CPIO replied on : 22/11/2021 01/11/2021 First appeal filed on : 07/12/2021 13/12/2021 First Appellate Authority order dated : 09/02/2022 10/02/2022 Second Appeal filed on : 21/01/2022 27/01/2022 Date of Hearing : 20/02/2023 Date of Decision : 20/02/2023 The following were present: Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Wg Cdr MK Singh and Wg Cdr Devender Singh, CPIO-Present over intra-VC Information Sought in File No. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/605285:
The appellant has sought the following information with regard to grant of pro- rata pension to him:1
1. In para 2 of letter No. Air HQ/99798/916958/DAV/SP dated 19 December 2019, it has been mentioned that pro rata pensionary benefits are applicable only to Commissioned officers of Defence services. However, before 09 Jan 2019, 24 Airmen and 261 Commissioned officers were given pro rata pension, but the same benefit has not been given to the appellant. In this regard, the appellant has sought the following information:
- Why pro rata pension was not given to the appellant? Whether the said 24 Airmen were Commissioned officers or IAF didn't consider the appellant as an Airmen?
2. In para 1 and para 3 of the letter dated 19 Dec. 2019, it has been stated that IAF role is just to forward pension papers and MoD is responsible for pro rata pension. The same IAF has approved pro rata pension for many airmen. Is it not a misleading reply? Provide opinion in this regard.
3. And other related information.
Information Sought in File No. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/605976:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide total number of applications received from Airmen during the period from 01 Jan 2014 to 10 August 2021 at AFRO & DOP (in respect of Airmen, who applied for discharge from IAF after completion of 10 years of service & before completion of 15 years of service).
2. Provide total number of Airmen who got discharged from IAF during the period from 01 Jan 2014 to 10 August 2021 (in respect of Airmen, who applied for discharge after completion of 10 years of service & before completion of 15 years of service).
3. Provide total number of Airmen who got discharged from IAF during the period from 01 Jan 2017 to 31 Dec 2019 (in respect of Airmen, who applied for discharge after completion of 10 years of service & before completion of 15 years of service).
4. And other related information Grounds for filing Second Appeals The CPIO did not provide the desired information.2
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present for the hearing to pursue his case. The notice of hearing was delivered to him vide speed post no. ED247319628IN on 02.02.2023.
The CPIO submitted that in Case No. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/605285, point-wise replies were given to the appellant vide letters dated 22.11.2021 and 20.12.2021. The disclosable information was provided vide these letters and the RTI application was transferred to CPIO, MoD for providing information at Para 12 and 14. The written submissions dated 24.01.2023 of the CPIO were received and taken on the record of the Commission.
In Case No. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/605976 he submitted that the information sought for was denied on two grounds. Firstly, the information sought for was exempted under Section-8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005 and secondly, it was voluminous in nature, hence, Section-7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 was also attracted. He referred to his written submissions dated 16.02.2023 which were available on the record of the Commission.
Observations:
The Commission after informing the respondent, clubbed the instant second appeals for hearing and final disposal as the parties in both the cases were similar.
Keeping in view the facts of the case, the Commission observed that prima facie the queries of the appellant were interrogative and not as per Section- 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was reiterated that the information in order to be disclosed must conform to the provisions of Section-2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO is not obligated to provide clarifications, reasons etc. to the seeker of the information. It was noted that the CPIO for respondent no. 2 has supplied the disclosable information to the appellant vide letters dated 22.11.2021 and 20.12.2021 in CIC/DODEF/A/2022/605285. Regarding point no. 12 and 14, it was noted that the RTI application was transferred to CPIO, MoD. However, the CPIO was not apprised of the present status of the reply given by the transferee public authority. Therefore, he was directed to obtain the information from the transferee public authority and send the same to the appellant.
The Commission further observed that in Case No. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/605976, the CPIO has denied the information under Section-8(1)(a) and Section-7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. The reasons for denial are properly explained in the written submissions dated 16.02.2023. Therefore, 3 the Commission upholds the denial of the information. The appellant also failed to attend the hearing and refute the averments of the CPIO. In the opinion of the Commission, the steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI applications were satisfactory.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission directs the CPIO to send the copies of written submissions dated 24.01.2023 and 16.02.2023 along with all enclosures to the appellant. The Commission also directs the CPIO to obtain the information on points no. 12 and 14 from the transferee public authority and send the reply so received to the appellant in Case No. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/605285. The aforesaid directions of the Commission shall be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The instant second appeals, therefore, stand disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4