Central Information Commission
Anil Kumar Patel vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 16 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632233
Anil Kumar Patel .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Board of Indirect
Taxes and Customs, North
Block, New Delhi - 110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.02.2026
Date of Decision : 16.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Second Appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
as well as the Respondent are same and the subject-matter is similar in nature
and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2024
CPIO replied on : 07.06.2024
First appeal filed on : 07.06.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.07.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29.07.2024
File No. CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 Page 1 of 14
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide the action taken and the relevant note/order on the request dated 13.09.23 and subsequent reminder of Shri Anil Kumar Patel, a copy of which is attached herewith as under-
I write this with reference to F No. 18011/03/2019- Ad Il dated 13.09.2023 of the board to the Addl Commr CCO Bhopal zone, calling for the APAR folders of the 12 superintendents for promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner for vacancy year 2017-18. These officers were given revised seniority from 2512A-8 to 2512A-18, and 2512CA of the AISL 1998 to 2006.
I, A.K. Patel, have been working as a Superintendent of Central Excise under Bhopal zone in Raipur Commissionerate and since retired on 30.06.2020. There was a dispute on my seniority which was initially fixed at 1761 and later revised to 3631 F in the All-India Seniority List of Superintendents of Central Excise for 1998 to 2006. This was challenged by me. Similar was the case with other officers of Bhopal zone who represented against this and many cases in CAT were filed which resulted in favour of the officers.
The 12 officers mentioned above are junior to me as is clear from the fact that my position in said seniority list was 1761 i.e. above the revised seniority given to these officers.
In view of the above, I deserve to be promoted from, at least from the vacancy year 2017-18. Hence I request you to kindly take action in this matter and issue suitable order for my promotion to the grade of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise from 23.02.2017 i.e. the date on which my juniors were promoted. This is even more justified when juniors are sought to be promoted vide the above communication dated 13 09.2023."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.06.2024 stating as under:
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 Page 2 of 14"Promotions are done strictly on the basis of eligibility list and as per your existing seniority position i.e. AISL 3631F, your case does not qualifies for consideration for promotion. However, the matter will be examined on file and decision of higher authority will be obtained and if so directed the decision will be communicated to you."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.06.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 12.07.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
File No. CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632233 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.04.2024 CPIO replied on : 22.05.2024 First appeal filed on : 17.06.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 12.07.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02.08.2024 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide the action taken and the relevant note/order on the request dated 02.11.23 and reminder dated 01.01.24 of Shri Anil Kumar Patel, a copy of which is attached herewith as under -
I write this with reference to FNo. C-18011/03/2019- Ad Il dated 01.11.2023 forwarding office order No 189/2023 vide which 14 (out of
21) officers of Central Excise have been promoted to the grade of Assistant Commissioner with effect from 11.05.2018 who were all juniors to me on the said date in Bhopal zone. Sir, I retired on 30.06.2020 only making me eligible for promotion on said date 18.05.2018. But CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 Page 3 of 14 unfortunately my name A K Patel, has not been considered while disposing the issue. Sir it is pertinent to mention here that my seniority number was AISL1761 in the original list. Sir these officers, all juniors to me, were given revised seniority from 2512A-8 to 2512A-18, and 2512CA of the AISL 1998 to 2006, all of whom stand promoted vide the said order dated 01.11.2023.
Sir, this promotion that I am aptly eligible for, will not afford me any pecuniary benefit but all the same will entitle me great mental satisfaction for getting my second promotion in a carrier spanning 35 years of faithful service to the department. Sir, I can not afford another litigation for the same as my resources and time are both very limited. As such I beseech you sir to consider my application on judicious basis, for which I shall remain ever grateful to you."
6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 22.05.2024 stating as under:
"Vide Office Memorandum F. No. 8/B/38/HRD (HRM)/2010/O III dated 26.03.2015, corrections in the integrated All India Seniority List (AISL) of Superintendent of Central Excise for the period 01.01.1998 to 31.12.2006 has been made. Accordingly, your seniority number has been revised to AISL 3631F. Hence the officers as mentioned in your request dated 06.11.2023 became senior to you leading to their promotion to Assistant Commissioner. The copy of the OM dated 26.03.2015 and the relevant page containing your name and seniority number has been enclosed.
As the promotions are done strictly on the basis of AISL, no action appears warranted on your request dated 02.11.2023."
7. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.06.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 12.07.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
8. 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.CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 Page 4 of 14
Respondent: Shri Lianlalmuan, Under Secretary and CPIO, appeared in person.
9. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 29.07.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.
10. The Appellant inter alia submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply given by the respondent Authorities. He contended that certain officers who were junior to him had been promoted to the grade of Assistant Commissioner, whereas his case had not been considered despite his long service in the department. He further submitted that the basis for revision of his seniority position in the All-India Seniority List and the consequential promotion of other officers had not been adequately explained.
11. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 13.02.2026 in both the cases disclosing relevant facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission filed in File No. CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 is reproduced as under:
"(i) Vide RTI Application dated 29.05.2024 (Annexure-I) the applicant (Shri Anil Kumar Patel) had sought details regarding the action taken and the relevant note/order on his request dated 13.09.2023 and subsequent reminders.
(ii) Shri A.K. Patel in his representation dated 13.09.2023 and subsequent reminder dated 01.01.2024 had requested for promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner by stating that 12 Superintendents whose APAR folders were sought for promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner, were junior to him. These officers were given revised seniority from 2512A-8 to 2512A-18 and 2512CA of the AISL 1998 to 2006.
(iii) The then CPIO (Ad. II) disposed of the said RTI application dated 29.05.2024 vide reply dated 07.06.2024 (Annexure-II) stating CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 Page 5 of 14 "Promotions are done strictly on the basis of eligibility list and as per your existing seniority position i.e. AISL. 3631F, your case does not qualify for consideration for promotion. However, the matter will be examined on file and decision of higher authority will be obtained and if so directed, the decision will be communicated to you.
(iv) The appellant then filed RTI Appeal (Reg. No. CBECE/A/E/24/00079) dated 07.06.2024 (Annexure-III). The FAA disposed of the RTI Appeal vide order dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure-IV) stating, inter-alia, that the representation dated 13.09.2023 and subsequent reminders from Shri A.K. Patel, Superintendent (Retd.) for promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner was submitted before the higher authorities. As none of the juniors of Shri A.K. Patel have been promoted from the date when he was in service, his representation is found to be devoid of merit and rejected accordingly. He has also been informed vide letter dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure-V).
(v) The Applicant filed the present appeal before the Hon'ble CIC stating that the reply under RTI and First Appeal are not tenable. The reply failed to adequately cover the points raised by query as regards to following issues -
(i) The basis of change of applicant's seniority from 1761 to 3631F in AISL 1998-2006, which has not been disclosed;
(ii) The basis of revision of seniority of 12 officers from AISL 2007-
2011 to AISL 1998-2006, which was not disclosed;
(iii) The logic behind putting applicant's name below the said 12 junior officers who were promoted as Superintendents after 2006 whereas the applicant was promoted as superintendent in 2002, has not been discussed:
(iv) The fact that these 12 superintendents were junior to the applicant all along right from the joining the department has not been contested in the reply, nor was discussed;
(v) Assuming that applicant's seniority was 3631F as revised in 2015, and these officers were given seniority from 251248 CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 Page 6 of 14 onwards, it has not been explained as to why applicant's seniority was not further revised above 251248 vide DGHRD OM dated
12.09.2023 2.1 In this regard, it is humbly submitted that the appellant had filed multiple RTIs and First Appeals on the similar issues all of which have been responded to by providing the relevant information sought by him as available with the Section.
2.2 Further, it is also submitted that. Shri A.K. Patel had filed another RTI application (CBEC/R/E/24/00534) dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure-VI) seeking information on the same issues mentioned in his present appeal. This was disposed of by the then CPIO (Ad.II) vide reply dated 09.08.2024 stating, inter alia, that "the seniority list was revised by the zone and consequently by the DGHRD. Hence the information may be sought from them separately. Ad.II Section is concerned with promotion of officers which is based on the position in the seniority list and availability of vacancies, etc....". Not satisfied with the reply. Shri Patel filed an appeal (Reg. No. CBECE/A/E/24/00115) dated 20.08.2024 which was subsequently disposed of by the then FAA vide order dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure-VII) by directing the CPIO (Ad.11) to transfer the points 1 to 7 of RTI application dated 29.07.2024 to the CPIO. DGHRD (HRM-1) to provide the information directly to the applicant, since the matter is related to DGHRD (HRM-I). Accordingly, the then CPIO (Ad.II) transferred the said RTI dated 29.07.2024 of Shri A.K. Patel to the CPIO, DGHRD (HRM-1) vide letter dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure-VIII) 2.3 It further submitted that in another RTI appeal (Reg. No. CBECE/A/E/24/00149) filed by Shri A.K. Patel, the FAA vide order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure-IX) stated that point-wise reply to the appellant's RTI application dated 27.09.2024 (mentioned in para 2.2 above) had been provided by DGHRD (HRM-1) on 14.10.2024 (copy not available with the undersigned). The FAA also stated that the subject matter regarding fixing of his seniority is largely the issue of the jurisdictional zone, and advised the appellant to take up the matter with them.
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 Page 7 of 143. From above, it may be observed that the representations as well as the RTI applications and appeals filed by Shri A.K. Patel had been addressed appropriately by Ad.II Section of CBIC as per the information available with them. While promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner is the subject matter of Ad.II Section, these promotions are done strictly on the basis of the AISL. Further, the main issue/grievance of the appellant is regarding seniority in All India Seniority List (AISL) of Superintendents which is the subject matter of the jurisdictional zone and DGHRD (HRM-1). Accordingly, as stated in para 2.2. above, the RTI application dated 29.07.2024 of Shri A.K. Patel wherein he had sought information on the same issues stated by him in this present appeal, was transferred to the appropriate authority i.e. CPIO, DGHRD (HRM-I). Further, while the RTI Act. 2005 mandates right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities which had been provided in the instant case. it appears that by insisting on change in his seniority position through his multiple RTI applications and appeals, Shri A.K. Patel is seeking redressal of his grievance rather than information. It is also pertinent to mention here that the redressal sought by Shri A.K. Patel in his representation/applications is sub-judice before the Hon'ble CAT, Jabalpur Bench in O.Α. No. 1214/2024 filed by him on the same issue. The next date of hearing in the matter is 09.04.2026."
12. The written submission filed in in case File No. File No. CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632233 is as under:
"(i) Vide RTI Application dated 28.04.2024 (Annexure-I) the applicant (Shri Anil Kumar Patel) had sought details regarding the action taken and the relevant note/order on his request dated 02.11.2023 and reminder dated 01.01.2024.
(ii) In his representation dated 02.11.2023 as reproduced in reminder dated 01.01.2024, Shri A.K. Patel had submitted as under -CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 Page 8 of 14
"I write this with reference to F No.C-18011/03/2019-AdII dated 01.11.2023 forwarding office order No 189/2023 vide which 14 (out of 21) officers of Central Excise have been promoted to the grade of Assistant Commissioner with effect from 11.05.2018 who were all juniors to me on the said date in Bhopal zone. Sir, I retired on 30.06.2020 only making me eligible for promotion on said date 18.05.2018. But unfortunately my name A K Patel, has not been considered while disposing the issue. Sir it is pertinent to mention here that my seniority number was AISL 1761 in the original list. Sir these officers, all juniors to me, were given revised seniority from 2512A-8 to 2512A-18, and 2512CA of the AISL 1998 to 2006, all of whom stand promoted vide the said order dated 01.11.2023.
Sir, this promotion that I am aptly eligible for, will not afford me any pecuniary benefit but all the same will entitle me great mental satisfaction for getting my second promotion in a carrier spanning 35 years of faithful service to the department. Sir, I cannot afford another litigation for the same as my resources and time are both very limited. As such I beseech you sir to consider my application on judicious basis, for which I shall remain ever grateful to you."
(iii) The then CPIO (Ad.II) disposed of the said RTI application dated 28.04.2024 vide reply dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure-II) stating "Vide Office Memorandum F. No. 8/B/38/HRD (HRM)/2010/O III dated 26.03.2015, corrections in the integrated All India Seniority List (AISL) of Superintendent of Central Excise for the period 01.01.1998 to.31.12.2006 has been made. Accordingly, your seniority number has been revised to AISL 3631F. Hence the officers as mentioned in your request dated 06.11.2023 became senior to you leading to their promotion to Assistant Commissioner. The copy of the OM dated 26.03.2015 and the relevant page containing your name and seniority number has been enclosed. As the promotions are done strictly on the basis of AISL, no action appears warranted on your request dated 02.11.2023." A copy of the Office Memorandum F. No. 8/B/38/HRD (HRM)/2010/O III dated 26.03.2015 (Annexure-III) was also provided to the applicant.
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 Page 9 of 14(iv) The appellant then filed RTI appeal (Reg. No. CBECE/A/E/24/00083) before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 17.06.2024 stating, Inter- alia, that the 12 officers promoted to the grade of Assistant Commissioner vide Office Order No. 189/2023 dated 01.11.2023 were junior to him from the beginning; the seniority of these officers was revised by applying the 'Catch-up rule' and the benefit of 'Catch-up' rule may also be extended to him as a similarly placed officer.
(v) The RTI appeal dated 17.06.2024 was disposed of by the FAA vide order dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure-IV) noting that the CPIO has already informed the applicant that corrections in the integrated All India Seniority list (AISL) for the period 01.01.1998 to 31.12.2006 has been made vide Office Memorandum F. No. 8/B/38/HRD (HRM)/2010/O III dated 26.03.2015. Accordingly, his seniority number was revised from 1761 to 3631F. Hence, the officers as mentioned in his representation became senior to him leading to their promotion to Assistant Commissioner. He was also informed that the promotions are done strictly on the basis of AISL.
(vi) The Applicant filed the present appeal before the Hon'ble CIC stating that the reply under RTI and First Appeal are not tenable. The reply failed to adequately cover the points raised by query as regards to following issues -
(i) The basis of change of applicant's seniority from 1761 to 3631F in AISL 1998-2006, which has not been disclosed:
(ii) The basis of revision of seniority of 12 officers from AISL 2007-
2011 to AISL 1998-2006, which was not disclosed;
(iii) The logic behind putting applicant's name below the said 12 junior officers who were promoted as Superintendents after 2006 whereas the applicant was promoted as superintendent in 2002, has not been discussed
(iv) The fact that these 12 superintendents were junior to the applicant all along right from the joining the department has not been contested in the reply, nor was discussed;
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 Page 10 of 14(v) Assuming that applicant's seniority was 3631F as revised in 2015, and these officers were given seniority from 251248 onwards, it has not been explained as to why applicant's seniority was not further revised above 251248 vide DGHRD OM dated 12.09.2023.
2.1 In this regard, it is humbly submitted that the appellant had filed multiple RTIs and First Appeals on similar issues all of which have been responded to by providing the relevant information sought by him as available with the Section. As regards his representation dated 01.01.2024 mentioned by the appellant in his original RTI application dated 28.04.2024, the representation was disposed of vide letter dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure-V).
2.2 Further, it is also submitted that, in response to the aforementioned CBIC letter dated 24.06.2024, Shri A.K. Patel had filed another RTI application dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure-VI) seeking information on the same issues mentioned in his present appeal. This was disposed of by the then CPIO (Ad.II) vide reply dated 09.08.2024 stating. inter alia, that "the seniority list was revised by the zone and consequently by the DGHRD. Hence the information may be sought from them separately. Ad.II Section is concerned with promotion of officers which is based on the position in the seniority list and availability of vacancies, etc...". Not satisfied with the reply, Shri Patel filed an appeal (Reg.No. CBECE/A/E/24/00115) dated 20.08.2024 which was subsequently disposed of by the then FAA vide order dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure-VII) by directing the CPIO (Ad.II) to transfer the points 1 to 7 of RTI application dated 29.07.2024 to the CPIO, DGHRD (HRM-I) to provide the information directly to the applicant, since the matter is related to DGHRD (HRM-I). Accordingly, the then CPIO (Ad.II) transferred the said RTI dated 29.07.2024 of Shri A.K. Patel to the CPIO, DGHRD (HRM-I) vide letter dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure-VIII).
2.3. It further submitted that in another RTI appeal (Reg. No.CBECE/A/E/24/00149) filed by Shri A.K. Patel, the FAA vide order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure-IX) stated that point-wise reply to the appellant's RTI application dated 27.09.2024 (mentioned in para 2.2 CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 Page 11 of 14 above) had been provided by DGHRD (HRM-I) on 14.10.2024 (copy not available with the undersigned). The FAA also stated that the subject matter regarding fixing of his seniority is largely the issue of the jurisdictional zone, and advised the appellant to take up the matter with them.
From above, it may be observed that the representations as well as the RTI applications and appeals filed by Shri A.K. Patel had been addressed appropriately by Ad. II Section of CBIC as per the information available with them. While promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner is the subject matter of Ad. II Section, these promotions are done strictly on the basis of the AISL. Further, the main issue/grievance of the appellant is regarding seniority in All India Seniority List (AISL) of Superintendents which is the subject matter of the jurisdictional zone and DGHRD (HRM- I). Accordingly. as stated in para 2.2. above, the RTI application dated 29.07.2024 of Shri A.K. Patel wherein he had sought information on the same issues stated by him in this present appeal, was transferred to the appropriate authority i.e. CPIO, DGHRD (HRM-I). Further, while the RTI Act, 2005 mandates right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities which had been provided in the instant case, it appears that by insisting on change in his seniority position through his multiple RTI applications and appeals, Shri A.K. Patel is seeking redressal of his grievance rather than information. It is also pertinent to mention here that the redressal sought by Shri A.K. Patel in his representation/applications is sub-judice before the Hon'ble CAT, Jabalpur Bench in O.A. No. 1214/2024 filed by him on the same issue. The next date of hearing in the matter is 09.04.2026."
13. The Respondent further submitted that the applicant has not sought any particular information or document but merely ventilated his grievance in the RTI application.
Decision:
14. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 Page 12 of 14 Respondent has provided a reply to the RTI applications based on the records available with them, including information regarding the revision of the Appellant's seniority in the AISL and the basis on which promotions were carried out.
15. The Commission further notes that the core issue raised by the Appellant relates to his grievance regarding fixation of seniority and consequential promotion, which is essentially a service matter. The scope of the RTI Act is limited to providing access to information available on record and does not extend to adjudication of service disputes or redressal of grievances.
16. It is also observed that the matter concerning the Appellant's seniority and promotion is already pending before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, and therefore the appropriate forum for adjudication of the said grievance is the competent judicial authority.
17. In view of the above, the Commission finds no deficiency in the replies furnished by the Respondent under the RTI Act and no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 Page 13 of 14 CIC/CBECE/A/2024/632221 Page 14 of 14 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)