Central Information Commission
Karan Pal Singh vs Ministry Of Information & Broadcasting on 23 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MOIAB/A/2024/112705
Karan Pal Singh .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting, A Wing, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.09.2025
Date of Decision : 23.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 17.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 24.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 20.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 19.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"With reference to the Ministry's communication F. No. A- 50013/97/2023-BA (P) dated the 24 July 2023 addressed to the CEO, Prasar Bharati to convey the approval of the competent authority for grant of Non-functional Up-gradation (NFU) to 13 JAG officers of IB(P)S Page 1 of 5 at Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) i.e. level 14 as per 7th CPC and issue orders accordingly.
Applicant, a JAG officer and is also similarly placed colleague of the said 13 JAG officers, who have been promoted to Non-Functional Up- gradation (NFU) at Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) i.e. level 14 as per 7th CPC, is ignored in granting promotion to SAG (Level 14 as per 7th CPC).
Therefore, It is requested that:
1) the copy of noting of The DPC on file may kindly am provided to the applicant?
2) Copies of the documents put up before the DPC in respect of the applicant may also be provided to the applicant?"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.11.2023 stating as under:
"In this regard, it is submitted that the requisite information consists of 43 pages. Photocopy of requisite documents may be provided on payment of Rs. 86 @ Rs.2 per page, as envisaged in RTI Act/ Rule. The requisite payment may be made either in cash at Facilitation Counter of the Ministry or by IPO/Demand Draft/ Banker Cheque to Section Officer (Cash), Ministry of I&B, payable at New Delhi."
3. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 05.01.2024 stating as under:
"Kindly refer to your RTI application bearing registration no. MOIAB/R/P/23/00286 dated 25.10.2023 and your letter dated 21.12.2023 (received on 2.1.2024) vide which you have forwarded payment of fees of Rs 86/- as the cost of photocopy.
2 With reference to the RTI application, the requisite information consisting of 43 pages is enclosed with this letter."
4. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 20.02.2024, held as under.
"1. The reply sent by the CPIO (BAP) vide letter of even number dated 10.01.2023 in respect of above mentioned RTI application has been perused and found to be correct as far as BAP Section is concerned. It is Page 2 of 5 stated that no additional information can be sought in the First Appeal which has not been mentioned in the original RTI application.
2. This disposes of the above mentioned First appeal dated 24.01.2024."
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of incomplete and misleading information received from the CPIO.
6. A written submission dated 15.09.2025 (copy marked to the Appellant) has been filed by Md. Zahid Sharif, US to GoI is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"2. The facts of the case are as under:
Shri Karan Pal Singh had filed an online RTI application dated 19.10.2023 seeking copies of notes of the DPC meeting for grant of NFU in Level 14 of IB(P)S and documents presented to the DPC in relation to him.
The CPIO concerned vide this Ministry's letter dated 17.11.2023 furnished the available information as per records and provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied, the applicant filed a First Appeal dated 24.01.2023. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 20.02.2024 upheld the CPIO's reply, observing that the information provided was correct as per the RTI Act and that the new queries raised at the appeal stage could not be entertained. Thereafter, the applicant filed a Second Appeal dated 24.04.2024 before the CIC with a request that further notes of DPC/Screening Committee Chairman and Members, reasons for non-recommendation, etc., be provided, and that penalty be imposed on the CPIO concerned.
3. It is respectfully submitted that the fresh queries raised by the applicant in the First and Second Appeals were not part of his original RTI application dated 19.10.2023. As per the RTI Act, 2005, additional or fresh information cannot be sought at the appellate stage.
4. Accordingly, the Ministry has already complied with the provisions of the RTI Act by providing the available and admissible information in response to the RTI application of the applicant i.e. Shri Karan Pal Singh, and the FAA has upheld the same. No further information is available or required to be provided at this stage.
5. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may take note of the above facts and dispose of the Second Appeal accordingly."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
Page 3 of 5The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Md. Zahid Sharif, US-cum-CPIO along with Shri Piyush Sharma, SO (appeared late) in person.
7. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 24.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
8. The Appellant stated that information as per his desire has not been given by the Respondent till date.
9. The Respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission stated that reply along with relevant noting- sheet has already been provided to the Appellant in the initial stage which was further affirmed by the FAA. He added that in this Second Appeal the Appellant expanded his queries by seeking additional information like comments/ views of the DPC/Screening Committee Chairman and Members, reasons for non- recommendation, etc. which are not part of his original RTI application. Decision:
10. The 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 reply has been provided by the Respondent vide their letter dated 05.01.2024 and again through written submission dated 15.09.2025 which is elaborative and self-explanatory. A copy of the same has already been shared with the Appellant. The Commission finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the Respondent as the same are in line with the provisions of the RTI Act and are thus, upheld.
11. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission has come across various cases where the similar issues relating to establishment matters like pay- fixation, seniority list and promotions, etc. have been flagged by the concerned Appellants. It is rather unusual that employees had too resort to the RTI Act in order to obtain information which otherwise should be available in normal course of Department's functioning. In many cases it is noted that one wrong pay-fixation is sought to be replicated by other similarly placed employees whose pay-fixation is obviously giving them less pay than the undue beneficiary. Accordingly, in order to reduce the burden on the RTI Act Page 4 of 5 mechanism and also considering wrong pay-fixation, an advisory is issued to the Respondent Public Authority under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act to get a special audit of all pay fixation of all serving employees conducted as soon as possible. This will relieve the burden of the Respondent in responding to numerous RTI applications besides timely corrective measure for removing anomaly created by wrong pay-fixation orders and also allow sufficient time to investigate attributability while complying with the orders of DoPT issued as a consequence of Court orders in Rafiq Masih v. State of Punjab Writ Petition.
12. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the FAA is directed to place a copy of this order before their concerned Competent Authority.
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, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to maintain records in digital form for proper management and ease of access in compliance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)