Central Information Commission
Pathak Shashi Shekhar vs Pay & Accounts Office on 23 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/PAYAO/A/2024/104679
Pathak Shashi Shekhar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
PAY ACCOUNTS OFICE (ORs) EME,
SECUNDERABAD - 500015 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.05.2025
Date of Decision : 23.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.08.2023
CPIO replied on : 13.09.2023
First appeal filed on : 17.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 27.09.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 09.08.2023 seeking the following information:
"Sub:- Request for info under sec 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 from PAO(OR's) EME[DISCREPANCY IN BASIC PAY OF JC761390W] Dear CPIO 1(a) EME Records letter no. JC761390/PC/T-3/NE-1 dt 08 Oct 2013
(b) EME Records letter no. JC761390/PC/T-3/NE-1 dt 16 May 2014.Page 1 of 5
2. I JC761390W Pathak Shashi Shekhar is a citizen of India and served in Army (EME) w.e.f. 06 Sep 1983 to 30 Sep 2013 (30 yrs and 25 days) requests you to furnish me with certain info under sec 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 from PAO(OR's) EME, which is under CDA Secunderabad.
3. PAO (OR's) EME never issued observation letter to me regarding non opt for CPC during my entire service till I had not asked for my discrepancy in basic pay. If I had not opted for Central pay Commission (CPC) then why my basic pay fixed as per 4th to 6th CPC, why not kept my basic pay as per 3rd CPC, also I lodged final query on 30 Sep 2013 but PAO(OR's) EME had not replied on the issue till Apr 2020 though the matter was under consideration at your end. If my demand was unlawful so PAO(OR's) EME might be supposed to reject it. Due to your negligence & carelessness I suffered financial loss throughout my service tenure.
This question arose when I filed a petition on 30 Sep 2013, this was manual mistake done by the then LG dealing man that he fixed my basic pay less 2 yearly increment than my colleague/junior JC 761479H at the time of basic pay fixation in 4th CPC (1 Jan 1986) and it was continued throughout my service, even though I raised this matter through my serving units to PAO(OR's)EME via EME records but that time also the situation was simultaneous as it is on today when I am doing letter correspondence since Sept 2013.
I want to know the action of PAO(OR's)EME as they had promised vide their letter quoted at para 1(b) regarding adjustment of two yearly increment throughout my entire service (Sep 1983 to Sep 2013).
For detail written reply from PAO. You are requested to finalise it as soon as possible because the matter is very long outstanding towards PAO(OR's)EME, which is under CDA Secunderabad."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.09.2023 stating as under:
"With reference to RTI application cited above, it is intimated that the retention of IRLA is five years from the discharge of PBOR/JCO in this office. Since you were discharged on 30.09.2013, therefore no physical documents is available in this office to review your case as all the documents pertains to you were disposed off.
However, your case has been reviewed, information is available in our system and found that Junior (JC761479H) exercised option for SIXCPC on Nb Sub promotion w.e.f 04.05.2007 whereas you failed to exercise for Page 2 of 5 the same at that time. The matter regarding (SIXCPC) most beneficial option is yet to be clarified from Hqrs and will be adjusted in due course."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 27.09.2023, held as under.
"It is intimated that this office is in receipt of your RTI application dt 09.08.2023 on 16.08.2023. The same was transferred to PAO (Ors) EME on 21.08.2023 in terms of section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 as the information sought was in connection with the functions of PAO. A copy of the same was sent to your address on 21.08.2023 for your information. However, the copy was returned to this office by Post by stating "Insufficient Name & address". (copy enclosed).
It is informed that your RTI application has been replied by PAO(ORS) EME 13.09.2023. (copy of the same is enclosed for ready reference)."
4. 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 VC.
Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivasan, CPIO-cum-Assistant Controller, attended the hearing through VC.
5. The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
6. The Respondent submitted that the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application has already been furnished to him by CPIO and now he is harping for redressal of his grievance which is beyond the ambit of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. While explaining the brief background of the case, the Respondent apprised the Bench of the fact that the Appellant has not opted for the benefits of 6th CPC, though MACP benefits has been given to the Appellant on 01.01.2006 along with arrears of Rs. 37,000/- and a revised PPO has also been issued. He added that the retention period of IRLA is five years from the date of discharge of PBOR/ICO in this office. Since the individual was discharged on 30.09.2013, no physical documents are available in this office.
Page 3 of 57. A written submission has been received from Shri A.P. Srinivasan, CPIO- cum-Assistant Controller, vide letter dated 13.05.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"The queries raised/sought by the appellant are of grievance in nature. From the submission made above, it may be seen that every information sought for by the Appellant/Complainant has already 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 congizance. And for this Respondent shall ever pray."
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is merely seeking action taken by PAO w.r.t. to a letter dated 16.05.2014. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply intimating the action taken in respect of the averred letter dated 16.05.2014, to the Appellant within three weeks of the receipt of this order. The FAA to ensure compliance with the direction.
9. Beyond this, the Appellant is seeking redressal of his grievance which cannot be addressed under the scope and ambit of the RTI Act, and the Appellant is advised to approach appropriate forum.
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 Page 4 of 5 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Controller of Defence Accounts, No.1, Staff Road, Secunderabad - 500009 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)