Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

D. Mahalakshi vs Board Of Apprenticeship Training, ... on 24 February, 2026

                             के ीय सूचनाआयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/BOATC/A/2025/614702

D. MAHALAKSHI                                         .....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम

CPIO,
BOARD OF APPRENTICESHIPTRAINING,
(SOUTH REGION), RTICELL,
4TH STREET, C.I.T.CAMPUS,
TARAMANI,CHENNAI-600113                               .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    18.02.2026
Date of Decision                    :    18.02.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Sudha Rani Relangi

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    20.11.2024
CPIO replied on                     :    13.12.2024
First appeal filed on               :    09.01.2025
First Appellate Authority's order   :    07.02.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    Nil

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.11.2024 seeking the following information:-

"With reference to the office letters cited above, I have received the revised pay scale and arrears delayed more than 22 years (Eligible from the year 2000). Government staff are entitled to claim interest for delayed payment of salary says Court. Delay violates constitutional right of the employees."

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.12.2024 stating as under:-

"On Scrutiny of records, it is inferred that salary was not delayed. Revised pay scale arrears amount was paid as per approval of Competent authority."

3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.01.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 07.02.2025, upheld reply of the CPIO.

4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Shri Rahul Asati, AD/PIO present through video conference.

5. Written statement filed by the Appellant is taken on record, through which the Appellant prayed the Commission to grant her interest for delayed arrears of revised pay scale.

6. CPIO stated that as per records that salary of revised pay scale was approved on 19.04.2022 and paid to the Appellant on time on 29.04.2022, therefore, there is no question for payment of delayed interest. On oral direction of the Bench, the Appellant agreed to file written statement along with supporting documents to substantiate his claim for release of payment to Appellant on time.

7. Post hearing, the Commission is in receipt of supporting documents from the CPIO including agenda of Standing Finance Committee Meeting dated 18.02.2022 and proof of payment to Appellant on 29.04.2022, which is taken on record.

Decision:

8. On-going through the submissions of the parties and perusal of records, the Commission observed, at the outset, that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per serather it is about redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding non-receipt of delayed interest on arrear of revised pay.

9. From the standpoint of RTI Act, 2005 the reply of the CPIO and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO on hearing alongwith the copy of relevant enclosures areas per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

10. It is noteworthy that CPIO is supposed to provide only such information as is held in the office records and is permissible under the RTI Act, 2005 and not the ones which are not held by the Public Authority. In this regard, the Commission relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay&Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:

"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied)

11. As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned,areference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter ofHansiRawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013wherein it has been held as under:

"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).

12. The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter ofGovt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017wherein 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."

13. While, the Apex Court in the matter ofUnion of India vsNamit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013observed 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 than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)

14. In view the above, no relief can be granted in the matter.

The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रेलंगी ) Information Commissioner (सू चनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Ms.D. MAHALAKSHI Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)