Central Information Commission
Amar Chand Meena vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 23 April, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637, CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811,
CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814, CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685,
CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683, CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512,
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842
Amar Chand Meena .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Pay & Accounts
Office, Commissionerate of
Customs, Room No. 232-233,
New Custom House, Near IGI
Airport Cargo Terminal,
New Delhi - 110037 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.04.2026
Date of Decision : 23.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Second Appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
as well as the Respondent are common, and subject-matter is similar in nature
and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
Page 1 of 39
File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814;
CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512;
CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842
File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.04.2024
CPIO replied on : 03.05.2024
First appeal filed on : 15.05.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 11.06.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.08.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.04.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Information Under RTI Act 2005 regarding issuance of revised PPO w.r.t. PPO No.547002100184 of applicant Amar Chand Meena in compliance of order dt.5.10.2021 and 16.01.2024 of Stepping up of pay of applicant issued by Competent authority of Commissionerate of Customs, ICD(Import) TKD, New Delhi and forwarded to PAO, Customs, NCH, New Delhi reg.-
1. Please provide the copy of order issued by competent authority of PAO to not issued revised PPO w.r.t. PPO No.547002100184 of applicant in spite of issued order dt.5.10.2021 of Stepping up of pay of applicant w.r.t. Sh. Dharam Singh Meena, Asstt. Commissioner by Competent authority of Commissionerate of Customs, ICD(Import) TKD, New Delhi and sent to PAO for necessary action in this regard and provide name and designation of the officer of PAO if issued any such order for denial of issue revised PPO after issued order of stepping up of my pay by Competent authority.
2. Please provide the copy of order issued by competent authority of PAD to not issued revised PPO wr.t. PPO No.547002100184 of applicant in spite of issued order at 16.01.2024 of Stepping up of pay of applicant w.r.t. Sh. Neeraj Babu Jain, Asstt. Director, HRD by Competent authority of Commissionerate of Customs, ICD(Import) TKD, New Delhi and sent to PAO for necessary action in this regard and provide name and designation of the officer of PAD if issued if issued any such order for Page 2 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 denial of issue revised PPO after issued order of stepping up of my pay by Competent authority.
3. Please provide the information whether after issued order dt. 5.10.2021 of my revised pay. fixation of Rs. 104400/ as on 01.07.2021 the revised pension with regards to PPO No. 547002100184 has been issued and differential amount of my commutation, Leave encasement, part of retirement benefit, has been released in compliance of the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India of dated 06.04.2022 delivered on the identical issue of removal of anomaly of pay by stepping up of pay of senior where junior are drawing more pay than senior in the case of UIO v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr. citation-JT 2022 (4) SC, if not please provide the copy of any legal order by which the above Hon'ble Apex Ruling has been reversed.
4. Please provide the information of name, designation of the officer of PAD by which after stepping up of my pay on the basis of pay of Sh Dharam Singh Meena payment of arrear of pay has been approved, released through bill No. CP00000365 dt. 8.12.2021 but order of revision of PPO w.r.t. PPO No.547002100184 of applicant not issued till now in spite of issued order dt.5.10.2021 of Stepping up of pay of applicant by Competent authority of Commissionerate of Customs, ICD(Import) TKD, New Delhi and sent for necessary revision in the pension benefits of applicant
5. Please provide the information whether my case of issuance of revised PPO w.r.t. PPO No.547002100184 and release of differential amount of my commutation, Leave encasement, part of retirement benefit has been put up before the competent authority/Head of the department as the same has not been released since 2021 and holding illegally & arbitrarily by PAO Customs, NCH, New Delhi without having any legal order, even after issued order of my revised pay fixation of Rs. 104400/ as on 01.07.2021 by the competent authority, if yes, please provide copy of the relevant Note sheet under which my case has been put up and copy of order issued if any in this regard, if not put up to competent authority please provided the name, designation of the officer who is responsible for holding illegally & arbitrarily issuance of revised PPO wr.t. PPO No. 547002100184 in my case and approval of the retirement benefit to put his name in my complaint/ representation for interest on delay of release Page 3 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 of my retirement benefits/ revised PPO w.r.t. order issued under F.No. 19012/01/2022-Ad.IVA, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, CBIC dt.15.12.2023.
6. Please provide the information whether it is true that till date neither the Correctness of Pay fixation of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena in compliance of letter dated-7.11.2022 and 17.11.2022 of Dy. CA (NZ) CBIC, (AS PAO was also instructed to check the correctness of fixation of pay of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena) has been checked nor any order to Disturb or re- fixation of pay of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, A.C.(retd.) has been issued by PAO Customs, NCH New Delhi by which the service book & pay fixation of the said officer had been verified & approved before his retirement, but by the same PAO my revised pension order with regards to PPO No.547002100184 has not been issued and differential amount of my commutation, Leave encasement, part of retirement benefit, has not been released. taking plea that fixation of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, A.C.(retd.) is not correct, while after stepping up of my pay on the basis of pay of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena payment of arrear of pay has been approved, released through bill No.CP00000365 dt.8.12.2021 by the same PAD which is a case of undue harassment with mala fide intension, if not please provide the certified copy of order under which correctness of pay of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena has been checked or copy of order of re fixation order of pay of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena, AC (retd.)
7. Please provide the information that it is true that the PAO Customs, NCH New Delhi has not issued any order to reduce or downgraded the pay of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena, AC (retd) as OM N.1-6/2016-IC (pt) Department of Expenditure dt. 29.9.2016 mentioned in the letter dated 7.11.2022 and 17.11.2022 of Deputy Controller of Account (NZ) does not applicable in the case of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena, AC (retd.) as his case relates to 15.10.2015 and not between 1.1.2016 to 25.7.2016 and OM No. 4-13/17-IC/E-IIIA dt. 12.12.2018 allowed revised option within 3 months from 25.7.2016 while the pay of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena revised on 3.10.2016 which is within 03 month from 25.7.2016, if not please provide the certified copy of re fixation order of pay of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, A.C. (retd.).
8. Please provide the information that it is true that in the letter dated 7.11.2022 and 17.11.2022 of Deputy Controller of Account (NZ) referred Page 4 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 in the letter F.No. PAO/Cus/Pen/AC Meena/2021-22/1685 dated 31.1.2023 of Sr. Account Officer of PAO Customs, NCH, New Delhi it is clearly stated that "As per DOPT guidelines issued time to time and pay fixation in r/o Sh. Amar Chand Meena (Retired AC) seem as per rules"
and Chief Account Officer, ICD, Import, TKD, New Delhi not having any order of reduction or down gradation of the pay of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena, AC (retd.) in spite of that my revised pension order with regards to PPO No.547002100184 has not been issued and differential amount of my commutation, Leave encasement, part of retirement benefit, has not been released taking plea that PAO stating that fixation of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, A.C. (retd.) appears not in order but there is no order of re- fixation of his pay, which is a case of harassment with melafid intension on the part of PAO concerned, if not please provide the certified copy of re fixation order of pay of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, A.C. (retd.)"
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 03.05.2024 stating as under:
"1. (i) Copy of order issued dated 20.04.22 by competent authority is hereby enclosed.
(II) Name of the officer is Sh. Ram Niwas Garg.
(iii) Designation is Senior Accounts Officer.
2. No such case for revision of PPO received in this office. The letter.
mentioned in your RTI dated 16.01.24 at point no. 2 was case of verification. Copy of reply is enclosed herewith. Name & Designation Sh. Anup Kumar Katoch, Sr. Accounts Officer.
3. Revision of retirement benefits was denied by this office vide letter no. PAO/Cus/Pen/A C Meena/2021-22/558 dated 21.07.2022 as per order of DOPT para no. 20 of the OM nо. 35034/3/2015-Estt(D) dated 22.10.2019.
4. Name of the officer is Sh. Ram Niwas Garg and Designation is Sr. Accounts Officer.
Page 5 of 39File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842
5. Competent authority for issuance of PPO and pension case is Head of Office i.e. Sr. Accounts Officer. Case was put up with HOO and returned vide letter dated 20.04.22 & Copy of Note Sheet enclosed.
6. A letter regarding checking/correctness of pay of Sh. D.S. Meena from IAW(CBIC) has been written to HOO, General Commissionerate, no reply has been received to this office till date.
7. Same as para no. 6
8. Same as para no. 6"
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.05.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 03.06.2024, held as under:
"Therefore, the appeal dated 15.05.2024 has been filed.
Now, in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Appellate Authority by Section 19 (6) of Right to Information Act-2005, the Appellate Authority after carefully examining the facts of the case passes following order:
(a) Point no. 2 of RTI Application dated 08.04.2024: The CPIO is directed to provide justification for the allegation of providing the false information to the appellant. The requisite information may be provided by the CPIO to the appellant at the address provided by him.
(b) Point no. (5 to 8) of RTI Application dated 08.04.2024: The requisite information may be provided by the CPIO to the applicant at the address provided by him within a stipulated time frame of thirty-days.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly."
4. In compliance of the above order, the CPIO vide letter dated 11.06.2024 provided the revised information to the Appellant as under:
Page 6 of 39File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 "1. The reply of Point no. 2 of RTI application dated 08-04-2024 furnished was correct by this office. The copy of letter dated 16-01-2024 is enclosed herewith wherein the Department has requested to verify the pay.
2. The reply of Point no. 5 to 08 of RTI application dated 08-04-2024 has already been provided to you by this office vide letter no. PAO/Cus/Pen/AC Meena/2021-22/66 dated 03-05-2024 (Copy attached)"
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
File No. CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.06.2024 CPIO replied on : 28.06.2024 First appeal filed on : 15.07.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 26.07.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.08.2024 Information sought:
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.06.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Information Under RTI Act 2005 w.r.t. to letter No. PAO/Cus/Pen/A.C.Meena/2021-22/1547 dt 27.2.2024 of Mr. Anup Kumar Katoch, Sr. Account Officer, PAO, Commissionerate of Customs, NCH, New Delhi reg.-
1. Please provide the information whether it true that in Para-9 of OM No.35034/3/2015-Estt(D) dt.22.10.2019 no where is mentioned that "No stepping up of pay of Senior would be admissible with regards to junior getting more pay than the Senior where Senior get early promotion than Page 7 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 his juniors due to his higher Seniority and junior get MACP later and drawing more pay than Senior, if not please provide copy of such instruction under which stepping up of pay of senior is not admissible where Senior was drawing more pay before 1.1.2016 and till 30.6.2016 and thereafter Junior get more pay as a result of the applicability of the Provisions of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) on MACP.
2. Please provide the information whether it is true that CPIO make a misleading and false record/letter No. PAO/Cus/Pen/A.C.Meena/2021- 22/1547 dt 27.2.2024 send to the Chief Account Officer (pay Cell) Commissionerate of Customs, ICD (import) TKD, New Delhi that Stepping up of pay of applicant (Amar Chand Meena) is not admissible as per Para-9 of the OM No 35034/3/2015-Estt(D0 dt.22.10.2019 as the stepping up case is being asked between the senior employee who was promoted as Assistant Commissioner (Mr.Amar Chand Meena) and Junior employee who has been granted MACP (Sh.Neeraj Babu Jain, Asstt. Commissioner) but in para-9 of the said OM no such restriction has been described, if not please provide the Copy of para 9 of the said OM in which it has been described that "No stepping up of pay of Senior would be admissible with regards to junior getting more pay than the Senior where Senior get early promotion than his juniors due to his higher Seniority and junior get MACP later and drawing more pay than Senior as a result of the applicability of the Provisions of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1).
3. Please provide the information whether it is on record that applicant (Amar Chand Meena) who is Senior to Sh. Neeraj Babu Jain, Asstt. Commissioner was drawing more pay before 1.1.2016 and till 30.6.2016 in spite of that the benefit of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) has not been given to the applicant at the time of fixation of his pay on 24.10.2014 on his adhoc promotion as Assistant Commissioner as it was not regular Promotion and Department counted it as third Financial Upgradation vide letter C.No.Il-34(3)CCA/MACP/Misc./2015/15268 dt.5.1.2016 of the Additional Commissioner (CCA) Delhi Zone, Delhi and after 1.7.2016 Junior getting more pay as a result of the applicability of the Provisions of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) on MACP as such stepping up of pay of applicant is admissible even in view of para 20 of OM No. 35034/3/2015- Estt(DO dt. 22.10.2019, if not please provided the details of provisions under which order of stepping up of pay of applicant issued by the Page 8 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 competent authority in view of pay of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena and Mr. Neeraj Babu Jain are not correct.
4. Please provide the information whether it is true that even after CPIO is well aware the facts that applicant (Amar Chand Meena) is Senior to Sh. Neeraj Babu Jain, Asstt. Commissioner and was drawing more pay before 1.1.2016 and till 30.6.2016 vide stepping order dt. 16.1.2024 send by Competent authority of Customs Commissionerate ICD (Import) TKD New Delhi to CPIO/PAO and benefit of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) has not been given to the applicant at the time of fixation of his pay on 24.10.2014 on his adhoc promotion as Assistant Commissioner as it was not regular Promotion and Department counted it as third Financial Upgradation vide letter C.No.ll-34(3)CCA/MACP/Misc./2015/15268 dt.5.1.2016 of the Additional Commissioner (CCA) Delhi Zone, Delhi and after 1.7.2016 Junior getting more pay as a result of the applicability of the Provisions of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) on MACP but Ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of india given on the same matter/issue in the case of UIO & Ors v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr citation-JT 2022 (4) SC for stepping up of pay of senior where junior drawing more pay to remove anomaly not followed by the CPIO/PAO taking baseless frivolous plea with mala fide intension without having any order of Government of India issued for non implementation of the said Ruling in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India stipulated that Ruling of Apex court are binding to all person and office, if not please provide the copy of order of Govt. of India issued for stop the implementation of the said Ruling of Apex Court.
5. Please provide the information that under which Rule Sr. Account officer of Pay & Account Office, Commissionerate of Customs, NCH New Delhi is empowered/authorized to advice the Competent authority/Head of the Department of Commissionerate of Customs, ICD (Import), TKD New Delhi to refer the stepping up order of pay of applicant issued by them (Head of Department) while the Deputy Controller of Accounts (NZ) clearly states in his letter No. DCA/CBIC/JPP/2022-23/1970 dt. 17.11.2022 that "it is to inform that the pay anomaly cases should be represented at the Head of Department and rather not to PAO and other authority, So the appellant is requested to please submit the representation to the Head of Department for pay anomaly/stepping up case from Sh. Ashok Kumar Gautam and other Junior most official in Page 9 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 spite of that if Sr. Account officer of PAO having authority to advice the HOD of Commissionerate of Customs, ICD (Import), TKD New Delhi to refer the stepping up order of pay of applicant issued by them (Head of Department) w.r.t. Sh. Dharam Singh Meena, Asstt. Commissioner, Retd. and Sh. Sh. Neeraj Babu Jain, Asstt. Commissioner, please provide the copy of the said order/ Notification.
6. Please provide the information whether it is true that Sr. Account officer of Pay & Account Office, Commissionerate of Customs, NCH New Delhi under a criminal conspiracy raised objection in the order of stepping up of pay of applicant issued by the competent authority of Commissionerate of Customs, ICD (Import), TKD New Delhi by violating/ dishonoring the Ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India given on the matter/issue of stepping up of pay of senior where junior drawing more pay to remove anomaly in the case of UIO & Ors v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr citation-JT 2022 (4) SC without get any approval from the Deputy Controller of Account (NZ) or Head of the Department, which is a case of Unbecoming a Government Servant, if Sr. Account officer got any approval from the DCA (NZ) or Head of the Department to not follow the said Apex Court Ruling, Please provide the Copy of said approval given by the DCA (NZ) or Head of the Department."
7. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 28.06.2024 stating as under:
"1. In this regard it is stated that the Public Authority under the RTI Act is not supposed to create information or to interpret information, or to solve the problems raised by the applicant or furnish replies to hypothetical question. Only such information can be had under the Act which already exists with the public authority. The matter seems to be grievance in nature and RTI is not the forum to settle the grievance. As per RTI Act document/Note sheet are required to be provided by the CPIO.
2. Reply same as point no.1.
3. Reply same as point no.1.
4. Reply same as point no.1 Page 10 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842
5. Reply same as point no.1
6. Reply same as point no.1"
8. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 26.07.2024, held as under:
"That, Sh. Anup Kumar Katoch who is CPIO of PAO, Commissionerate of Customs, CBIC, New Customs House, New Delhi had responded (vide his replies dated 11.06.2024, 26.06.2024, 27.06.2024 and 28.06.2024) to the applicant regarding his RTI applications dated 15.05.2024, 04.06.2024, 06.06.2024 and 07.06.2024 in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005. The applicant in his appeal has stated that details were not provided on some points and false, evasive and frivolous information was furnished on other points.
Hence, the appeals dated 04.07.2024, 10.07.2024, 13.07.2024 and 15.07.2024 have been filed.
Now, in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Appellate Authority by Section 19 (6) of Right to Information Act-2005, the Appellate Authority after carefully examining the facts of the case passes following order:
(a) Both the parties i.e. the appellant and CPIO, PAO, Customs, New Delhi were directed to appear before the First Appellate Authority on 23.07.2024 at 11 A.M. Even though, the CPIO, PAO, Customs appeared before the First Appellate Authority, the appellant i.e. Sh. Amar Chand Meena did not appear before the First appellate Authority on the appointed date (23.07.2024).
(b) The requisite information has already been provided by the CPIO concerned.
(c) In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of in favour of CPIO, PAO, Customs, New Delhi."
Page 11 of 39File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842
9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
File No. CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814 Information sought:
10. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.05.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Information Under RTI Act 2005 w.r.t. your letter F.No. PAO/Cus/Pen/A.C. Meena/2021-22/66 dt. 3.5.2024 reg.-
1. Please provide the information whether the Sr. Account Officer by which letter F.No. PAO/Cus/Pen/A.C. Meena/2021-22/1547 dt. 27.2.2024 has been issued w.r.t. Chief Account Officer (Pay Cell) Commissionerate of Customs, ICD, (Import) TKD, New Delhi's letter No. VIII/ICD/TKD/PENSION/Amar Chand Meena/50/2021/30493 dt. 16.01.2024 regarding stepping of pay of Mr. Amar Chand Meena with compare to Mr. Neeraj Babu jain and Sr. Account Officer Mr. Anup Kumar Katoch by which letter F. No. PAO/Cus/Pen/A.C.Meena/2021- 22/66 dt.3.5.2024 has been issued and written in reply of point No. 2 that "No such case for revision of PPO received in this office. The letter mentioned in your RTI dated 16.1.2024 at point No.2 was case of verification" both are same person or both are different person, as asper contents of letter even No. 1547 dt. 27.2.2024 a false report/ false information has been provided by Mr. Anup Kumar Katoch Sr. Account Officer in letter F. No. PAO/Cus/Pen/A.C. Meena/2021-22/66 dt.3.5.2024 at point No.2 that "No such case for revision of PPO received in this office. The letter mentioned in your RTI dated 16.1.2024 at point No.2 was case of verification", which is a punishable offence under Section 166, 167, 218, 420 and 120B of IPC.
2. Please provide the information whether it is true that earlier CPIO/PAO not revised my pension order with regards to PPO No.547002100184 taking plea that case of applicant (Amar Chand Meena) is promotion case while case of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, who is junior to applicant, Page 12 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 is MACP case, but after submission of Ruling/ judgment dt. 6.4.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UIO & Ors v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr citationJT 2022 (4) SC which is on the identical issue/matter CPIO/PAO changed his stand in letter F.No. PAO/ Cus/Pen/A.C. Meena/2021-22/1685 dt.31.1.2023 address to Chief Account Officer, Commissionerate of Customs, ICD(import) TKD, New Delhi stating that pay fixation of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, AC, (retd.) appears not in order, which clearly shows mala fide intension and corruption activity of CPIO/PAO, if not please provide the copy of order issued by the Government of India that Ruling/judgment dt.6.4.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UIO & Ors v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr citation - JT 2022 (4) SC are not applicable in my case, where Article 141 of the Constitution of India stipulated that Ruling of Apex court are binding to all and copy of order of re-fixation of pay of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, AC, (retd.) if his pay fixation is not correct, as stated by CPIO in his letter even No. 1685 dt.31.1.2023.
3. Please provide the information whether matter/issue of the applicability of the Ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India given in the case of UIO & Ors v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr citation JT 2022 (4) SC for stepping up of pay of senior where junior drawing more par to remove anomaly which is identical case of applicant was forwarded by the CPIO/PAO to the Zonal office or Head of the Department for clarification, if yes please provide the copy of letter, order sheet under which matter was forwarded for clarification, if not forwarded and refused to follow the above Apex court ruling, please provide the name and designation of the officer of PAO who is dishonored/dishonoring the above ruling of Apex court in my case.
4. Please provided the information of name, designation of Vigilance officer and Chief Vigilance officer with their postal address under the jurisdiction of Mr. Anup Kumar Katoch, Sr Account Officer of PAO and CPIO PAO, Commissionerate of Custom, New Customs House, New Delhi are working."
11. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 11.06.2024 stating as under:
Page 13 of 39File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 "1. The reply furnished was correct and the copy of letter dated 16-01-
2024 is enclosed herewith wherein the Department has requested to verify the pay.
2. In this regard it is stated that the Public Authority under the RTI Act is not supposed to create information or to interpret information, or to solve the problems raised by the applicant or furnish replies to hypothetical question. Only such information can be had under the Act which already exists with the public authority. It has also been observed that several RTIs on the same subject have been received from your end and same replied has been provided by this office. The matter seems to be grievance in nature and RTI is not the forum to settle the grievance. As per RTI Act document/Note sheet are required to be provided by the CPIO.
3. Reply same as point no.2
4. No specific post in this department."
12. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 26.07.2024, held as under:
"That, Sh. Anup Kumar Katoch who is CPIO of PAO, Commissionerate of Customs, CBIC, New Customs House, New Delhi had responded (vide his replies dated 11.06.2024, 26.06.2024, 27.06.2024 and 28.06.2024) to the applicant regarding his RTI application's dated 15.05.2024, 04.06.2024, 06.06.2024 and 07.06.2024 in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005. The applicant in his appeal has stated that details were not provided on some points and false, evasive and frivolous information was furnished on other points.
Hence, the appeals dated 04.07.2024, 10.07.2024, 13.07.2024 and 15.07.2024 have been filed.
Now, in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Appellate Authority by Section 19 (6) of Right to Information Act-2005, the Appellate Authority after carefully examining the facts of the case passes following order:Page 14 of 39
File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842
(a) Both the parties i.e. the appellant and CPIO, PAO, Customs, New Delhi were directed to appear before the First Appellate Authority on 23.07.2024 at 11 A.M. Even though, the CPIO, PAO, Customs appeared before the First Appellate Authority, the appellant i.e. Sh. Amar Chand Meena did not appear before the First appellate Authority on the appointed date (23.07.2024).
(b) The requisite information has already been provided by the CPIO concerned.
(c) In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of in favour of CPIO, PAO, Customs, New Delhi."
13. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
File No. CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.05.2024 CPIO replied on : 11.06.2024 First appeal filed on : 03.07.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 26.07.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.08.2024 Information sought:
14. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.05.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Information Under RTI Act 2005 regarding Note sheet dt. 12.7.2022, 14.7.2022 enclosed with your letter F.No. 111B/PAO/Cus/RTI/Amar Chand Meena/2023-24/61 dt. 3.5.2024 reg.-
1. Please provide the information of name with designation of the Concerned officer of PAO which have put their signature on the note sheet copy enclosed Ref. C No. VIII/ICD/TKD/Import/Pension/AC Page 15 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 Meena/50/2021/6154 dt.01.06.2022-, as Sr. Acctt. on 12.7.2022, AAO and Sr.AO on 14.7.2022 where Sr. AO has approved that the judgment decision dt.6.4.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UIO & Ors v. Shri C.R Madhava Murthy & Anr citation-JT 2022 (4) SC is applicable to applicant and case to case in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India knowing the facts that this petition had been filed by the UOI and Govt. of India not issued any such order.
2. Please provide the information whether Sr. Acctt., AAO and Sr.AO are empowered to decided that judgment/decision dt. 6.4.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UIO & & Ors v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr Ant citation-JT 2022 (4) SC is applicable to applicant only, if yes please provide the copy of such order issued by the Government of india, as only the Govt. of India can issued such order that judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court on the issue of policy matter will applicable to applicant only.
3. Please provide the information whether Sr. Acctt., AAO and Sr.AO having any order of DOPT that judgment/decision dt. 6.4.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UIO & Ors v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Ant citation JT 2022 (4) SC will applicable to applicant only, If yes please provide the copy of such order, as only Joint Secretary and above of Govt. of India can decide if such judgment will applicable to applicant only, Sr. Acctt., AAO and Sr.AO having no such power.
4. Please provide the information whether Sr.AO of PAO having any approval of DOPT or Govt. of India that judgment/decision dt. 6.4.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UIO & Ors v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr ctation-JT 2022 (4) SC is applicable to applicant only, if yes please provide the copy of such approval, if not please provide the name, place of posting of the Sr. AO who approved the note sheet on 14.7.2022 put up by Sr. Acctt. on 12.7.2022 without having the jurisdiction to decide the issue of applicability of judgment/decision dt. 6.4.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UIO & Ors v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr. citation-JT 2022 (4) SC to applicant only, which is act of unbecoming Govt. servant.
5. Please provide the information that it is true that the PAO Customs, NCH New Delhi has not issued any order to reduce or downgraded the Page 16 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 pay of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena, AC (retd.) as OM N.1-6/2016-IC (pt.) Department of Expenditure dt. 29.9.2016 mentioned in the letter dated 7.11.2022 and 17.11.2022 of Deputy Controller of Account (NZ) does not applicable in the case of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena, AC (retd.) as his case relates to 15.10.2015 and not between 1.1.2016 to 25.7.2016 and OM No. 4-13/17-IC/E-IIIA dt. 12.12.2018 allowed revised option within 3 month from 25.7.2016 while the pay of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena revised on 3.10.2016 which is within 03 month from 25.7.2016, If not please provide the certified copy of re fixation order of pay of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, A.C. (retd.) in spite of that my revised pension order with regards to PPO No.547002100184 has not been issued till now and differential amount of my commutation, Leave encasement, part of retirement benefit, has not been released taking plea that fixation of Mr. Dharam Singh Meen's A. C. (retd.) is not correct which is a case of harassment with mala fide intension under activity of Corruption, if not please provide the certified copy of re fixation order of pay of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, A.C. (retd.) or copy of my revised pension order with regards to PPO No.547002100184 issued on the basis of order dt.5.10.2021 of Stepping up of my pay.
6. Please provide the information whether it is true that in the identical case Sh. Ashok Kumar Gautam. Retd. AD/Asstt. Commissioner has already been got benefit of stepping up of pay and other retirement benefit on the basis of pay of sh. Neeraj Babu Jain (joined as Inspector on 14.01.1986) AD, DGHRD, CBIC, (who is junior to me and drawing more pay as on 1.7.2016), vide order F.No.545/5/2018-DGHRD/10117 dt. 19.4.2021 issued by joint Director DGHRD, CBIC,507/8 Deep Shika, Rajendra place which have been approved by concerned PAO, if not please provide the copy of order of Concerned Sr. Account Officer/ PAO of DGHRD, CBIC issued for denial of benefit of stepping up given to sh. Ashok Kumar Gautam and withdrawal of his revised pension order.
7. Please provide the information whether it is true that earlier CPIO/PAO not revised my pension order with regards to PPO No.547002100184 taking plea that fixation of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, A.C.(retd.) appears not in order, but later on now in letter F.No.PAD/Cus/Pen/A C Meena/2021-22/76 dt. 20.4.2022 changed his own stand and stating that case of applicant (Amar Chand Meena) is promotion case while case of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, who is junior to applicant, is MACP case, Page 17 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 which clearly shows mala fide intension and corruption activity of CPIO/PAO, as the judgment/ decision dt. 6.4.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UIO & Ors v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr citation-JT 2022 (4) SC is on the identical issue/ matter and binding on CPIO/PAO as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India, if not please provide the copy of order issued by DOPT/Govt. of India for not implementation of the said Ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court
8. Please provide the information whether CPIO/PAO get any advice from the DOPT for not follow the Ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India given in the case of UIO & Ors v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr citation-JT 2022 (4) SC for stepping up of pay of senior where junior drawing more par to remove anomaly which is identical case of applicant, if yes please provide the copy of advise furnished by the DOPT, if CPIO refuse to follow the above Apex court ruling without having any order of Govt. of India, please provide the name and designation of the officer of PAO who is dishonoring the above ruling of Apex court in my case."
15. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 11.06.2024 stating as under:
"1. Sh Ram Niwas Garg, Sr. Accounts Officer.
2. In this regard it is stated that the Public Authority under the RTI Act is not supposed to create information or to interpret information, or to solve the problems raised by the applicant or furnish replies to hypothetical question. Only such information can be had under the Act which already exists with the public authority. It has also been observed that several RTIs on the same subject have been received from your end and same replied has been provided by this office. The matter seems to be grievance in nature and RTL is not the forum to settle the grievance. As per RTI Act document/Note sheet are required to be provided by the CPIO.
3. Reply same as point no.2
4. Reply same as point no.2 Page 18 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842
5. Information has already been provided to you by this office vide letter no. PAO/Cus/Pen/AC Meena/2021-22/66 dated 03-05-2024(Copy enclosed)
6. Information not pertains to this office, However the RTI has been transfer to the concerned CPIO vide letter No. PAO/Cus/Pen/AC Meena/2021-22/07 dated 04-04-2024. (Copy enclosed).
7. Reply same as point no.2
8. Reply same as point no.2"
16. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 26.07.2024 upheld the CPIO's reply.
17. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
File No: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.04.2024 CPIO replied on : 17.05.2024 First appeal filed on : 22.06.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 26.07.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.08.2024 Information sought:
18. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.04.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Information Under RTI Act 2005 regarding issuance of revised PPO w.r.t. PPO No.547002100184 of applicant Amar Chand Meena in compliance of Page 19 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 order dt.5.10.2021 and 16.01.2024 of Stepping up of pay of applicant issued by Competent authority of Commissionerate of Customs, ICD(Import) TKD, New Delhi and forwarded to PAO, Customs, NCH, New Delhi reg. -
1. Please provide the information of name, designation of the Concerned officer of PAO by which, without having any order of Disturb or down grade of pay of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, A.C.(retd.) (which service book & pay fixation had also been verified & approved by the same PAO), till now my revised pension order with regards to PPO No.547002100184 on the basis of order dt.5.10.2021 of Stepping up of pay of applicant w.r.t. pay of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena, Asstt. Commissioner by Competent authority of Commissionerate of Customs, ICD (Import) TKD, New Delhi and sent to PAO for necessary action has not been issued, taking baseless plea that pay fixation of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena appears incorrect, which is a case of dishonored of the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India of dated 06.04.2022 delivered on the identical issue of removal of anomaly of pay by stepping up of pay of senior where junior are drawing more pay than senior in the case of UIO v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr citation-JT 2022 (4) SC and case of harassment with mala fide intension, if not please provide the certified copy of re fixation order / order of downgrade of pay of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, A.C.(retd.) or copy of legal order of the competent authority by which the above Hon'ble Apex Ruling has been reversed.
2. Please provide the information that it is true that the PAO Customs, NCH New Delhi has not issued any order to reduce or downgraded the pay of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena, AC (retd.) as OM N.1-6/2016-IC (pt.) Department of Expenditure dt. 29.9.2016 mentioned in the letter dated 7.11.2022 and 17.11.2022 of Deputy Controller of Account (NZ) does not applicable in the case of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena, AC (retd.) as his case relates to 15.10.2015 and not between 1.1.2016 to 25.7.2016 and OM No. 4-13/17-IC/E-IIIA dt. 12.12.2018 allowed revised option within 3 month from 25.7.2016 while the pay of Sh. Dharam Singh Meena revised on 3.10.2016 which is within 03 month from 25.7.2016, if not please provide the certified copy of re fixation order of pay of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, A.C.(retd.) in spite of that my revised pension order with regards to PPO No.547002100184 has not been issued till now and differential amount of my commutation, Leave encasement, part of retirement Page 20 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 benefit, has not been released taking plea that PAO stating that fixation of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, A.C.(retd.) is not correct which is a case of harassment with melafid intension, if not please provide the certified copy of re fixation order of pay of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, A.C.(retd.) or copy of my revised pension order with regards to PPO No.547002100184 issued on the basis of order dt.5.10.2021 of Stepping up of my pay.
3. Please provide the information whether after issued order dt. 5.10.2021 of my revised pay fixation of Rs.104400/ as on 01.07.2021 the revised pension with regards to PPO No.547002100184 has been issued and differential amount of my commutation, Leave encasement, part of retirement benefit, has been released in compliance of the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India of dated 06.04.2022 delivered on the identical issue of removal of anomaly of pay by stepping up of pay of senior where junior are drawing more pay than senior in the case of UIO v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr citation-JT 2022 (4) SC, Which is binding on all Courts and authorities under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, if not please provide the copy of legal order of competent authority by which the above Hon'ble Apex Ruling has been reversed.
4. Please provide the information whether my case of issuance of revised PPO w.r.t. PPO No.547002100184 and release of differential amount of my commutation, Leave encasement, part of retirement benefit has been put up before the competent authority/Head of the department in compliance of the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India of dated 06.04.2022 delivered on the identical issue of removal of anomaly of pay by stepping up of pay of senior where junior are drawing more pay than senior in the case of UIO v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr citation-JT 2022 (4) SC, as the same has not been released since 2021 and holding illegally & arbitrarily by PAO Customs, NCH, New Delhi without having any legal order, even after issued order of my revised pay fixation of Rs. 104400/ as on 01.07.2021 by the competent authority, if yes, please provide copy of the relevant Note sheet under which my case has been put up and copy of order issued if any by the competent authority in this regard, if not put up to competent authority please provided the name, designation of the officer who is responsible for holding illegally & arbitrarily issuance of revised PPO w.r.t. PPO No.547002100184 in my case to put his name in my complaint/ representation for interest on Page 21 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 delay of release of my retirement benefits/revised PPO w.r.t. order issued under F.No. 19012/01/2022-Ad.IVA, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, CBIC dt.15.12.2023.
5. Please provide the information that it is true that in the letter dated 7.11.2022 and 17.11.2022 of Deputy Controller of Account (NZ) referred in the letter F.No.PAO/Cus./Pen/AC Meena/2021-22/1685 dated 31.1..2023 of Sr. Account Officer of PAO Customs, NCH, New Delhi it is clearly stated that "As per DOPT guidelines issued time to time and pay fixation in r/o Sh. Amar Chand Meena (Retired AC) seem as per rules"
and Chief Account Officer, ICD, Import, TKD, New Delhi not having any order of reduction or down gradation of the pay of Sh. Dharam singh Meena, AC (retd.) in spite of that my revised pension order with regards to PPO No.547002100184 has not been issued and differential amount of my commutation, Leave encasement, part of retirement benefit, has not been released taking plea that PAO stating that fixation of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, A.C.(retd.) appears not in order but there is no order of re- fixation of his pay, which is a case of harassment with melafid intension on the part of PAO concerned, if not please provide the certified copy of re fixation order of pay of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, A.C.(retd.) or copy of my revised pension order with regards to PPO No.547002100184 issued on the basis of order dt.5.10.2021 of Stepping up of my pay."
19. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 17.05.2024 stating as under:
"1. The information sought in RTI is ambiguous in nature. It seems grievance in nature, and this platform Is for information only.
2. A letter regarding checking/correctness of pay of Sh. D.S. Meena from IAW(CBIC) has been written to HOO, General Commissionerate, no reply has been received to this office till date.
The same information has already been sought vide your RTI dated 08.04.2024, and detailed reply has been given by this office vide letter no. PAO/Cus/Pen/A.C.Meena/2021-22/66 dated 03.05.2024
3. Revision of retirement benefits was denied by this office vide letter no. PAO/Cus/Pen/A C Meena/2021-22/558 dated 21.07.2022 as per order of Page 22 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 DOPT para no. 20 of the OM no. 35034/3/2015-Estt(D) dated 22.10.2019.
The same information has already been sought vide your RTI dated 08.04.2024, and detailed reply has been given by this office vide letter no. PAO/Cus/Pen/A.C.Meena/2021-22/66 dated 03.05.2024
4. Competent authority for issuance of PPO and pension case is Head of Office Le. Sr. Accounts Officer. Cate was put up with HOO and returned vide letter dated 21.07.2022. Copy of Note Sheet and letter enclosed.
5. Same as above point no. 2 The same information has already been sought vide your RTI dated 08.04.2024, and detailed reply has been given by this office vide letter no. PAO/Cus/Pen/A.C. Meena/2021-22/66 dated 03.05.2024"
20. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.06.2024. The FAA order dated 26.07.2024 upheld the CIO's reply.
21. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
File No: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.06.2024 CPIO replied on : 20.07.2024 First appeal filed on : 01.08.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 13.08.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Information sought:
22. The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 03-02-2024 seeking the following information:
Page 23 of 39File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 "Information Under RTI Act 2005 w.r.t. to letter No.PAO/Cus/Pen/A. C. Meena/2021-22/1547 dt 27.2.2024 of Mr. Anup Kumar Katoch, Sr. Account Officer, PAO, Commissionerate of Customs, NCH, New Delhi reg.
-
1. Please provide the information that under which Rule/Provision CPIO/ Sr.Account Officer Mr. Anup Kumar Katoch counted ad-hoc promotion of applicant as Promotion, vide his letter F.No. PAO/Cus/Pen/AC Меепа/2021-22/1547 dt.27.2.2024, while DOP&T not allowed benefit of FR22(1) (a) (1) on ad-hoc promotion treating by not treating it as Promotion, if CPIO/ Sr. Account Officer Mr. Anup Kumar Katoch having any order/Rule under which ad-hoc promotion has been counted/treated as Promotion and benefit of the Provisions of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a) (1) are applicable. Please provide the copy of such Rules/Orders.
2. Please provide the information whether it is true on record that the benefit of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) has not been given to the applicant at the time of fixation of his pay on 24.10.2014 on ad-hoc promotion as Assistant Commissioner and Department counted it as third Financial Upgradation vide letter C.No.II-34(3)CCA/MACP/Misc./2015/15268 dt 5.1.2016 of the Additional Commissioner (CCA) Delhi Zone, Delhi and Sh.
Dharam Singh Meena, Asstt. Commissioner (Retd) and Sh Neeraj Babu Jain, Asstt. Commissioner who are junior to applicant (Amar Chand Meena) were drawing more pay from 1.7.2016 as a result of the applicability of the Provisions of FR 22C. now FR 22(1)(a)(1) on MACP as such stepping up of pay of applicant is admissible even in view of para 20 of OM No.35034/3/2015-Estt(D0 dt. 22.10.2019 if not please provided the copy of fixation order in which benefit of the Provisions of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) has been given to applicant on ad-hoc promotion and details of provisions and copy of the same under which order of stepping up of pay of applicant issued by the competent authority in view of pay of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena and Mr. Neeraj Babu Jain are not correct.
3. Please provide the information whether it is true that CPIO furnished misleading, evasive, frivolous and contradictory and false information under a criminal conspiracy as earlier Sr. Account officer of PAO raised objection in the order of Stepping up of Pay of applicant issued by the Competent authority stating that the Pay fixation order of Mr. Dharam Page 24 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 Singh Meena are not correct vide PAO/CPIO letter No PAO/Cus/Pen/AC Meena/2021-22/1685 dt. 31.1.2023 but now CPIO/ Sr. Account Officer raised objection in the order of Stepping up of Pay of applicant issued by the Competent authority w.r.t. Para-20 of DOP&T OM no. 35034/3/2015- Estt(D) dt. 22.10.2019 stating that applicant (Amar Chan Meena) Promoted as Asstt. Commissioner while MACP has been granted to junior employee Sh. Sh.Dharam singh Meena, Asstt. Commissioner (Retd.) and Sh. Neeraj Babu Jain, Asstt. Commissioner), if not please provide the copy of order under which re-fixation of pay of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena has been made if his pay actually was wrongly fixed and Copy of DOP&T order/Rule under which ad-hoc promotion has been counted/treated as Promotion, benefit of the Provisions of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) are applicable and copy of pay fixation order of applicant in which benefit of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) had been granted on ad-hoc promotion on 24.10.2014.
4 Please provide the information whether it is true that CPIO under a criminal conspiracy raised frivolous objection in the order of stepping up of pay of applicant issued by the competent authority of Commissionerate of Customs, ICD (Import). TKD New Delhi w.r.t. Para-20 of DOP&T OM no.35034/3/2015-Estt(D) dt. 22.10.2019 stating that applicant (Amar Chan Meena) Promoted as Asstt. Commissioner while MACP has been granted to junior employee Sh. Sh.Dharam singh Meena, Asstt. Commissioner (Retd.) and Sh. Neeraj Babu Jain, Asstt. Commissioner) knowing the facts that DPO&T not treating ad-hoc promotion as Promotion and not allow benefit of the Provisions of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) which are applicable in the case of regular promotion and not followed the general Ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India given on the same matter/issue in the case of UIO & Ors v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr citation JT 2022 (4) SC for stepping up of pay of senior where junior drawing more pay to remove anomaly in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India stipulated that Ruling of Apex court are binding to all person and office, if not please provide copy of order/Rule under which ad-hoc promotion has been counted/treated as Promotion and benefit of the Provisions of FR 22C. now FR 22(1)(a) (1) provided and provide the copy of order of Govt. of India issued for stop the implementation of the said Ruling of Apex Court."
Page 25 of 39File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842
23. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 20.07.2024 stating as under:
"1. In this regard it is stated that the Public Authority under the RTI Act is not supposed to create information or to interpret information, or to solve the problems raised by the applicant or furnish replies to hypothetical question. Only such information can be had under the Act which already exists with the public authority. The matter seems to be grievance in nature and RTI is not the forum to settle the grievance. As per RTI Act document/Note sheet are required to be provided by the CPIO.
2 Reply same as point no. 1.
3. Reply same as point no.1.
4. Reply same as point no.1"
24. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.08.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 13.08.2024, held as under:
"That, Sh. Anup Kumar Katoch who is CPIO of PAO, Commissionerate of Customs, CBIC, New Customs House, New Delhi had responded (vide his reply dated 15.07.2024) to the applicant regarding his RTI application dated 15.06.2024 in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005. The applicant in his appeal has stated that details were not provided on some points and false, evasive and frivolous information was furnished on other points.
Hence, the appeal dated 01.08.2024 has been filed.
That, multiple appeals dated 04.07.2024, 10.07.2024, 13.07.2024 and 15.07.2024 seem to be almost identical in nature, which have already been disposed of.
That, appellant failed to appear before the First Appellate Authority on 23.07.2024 at 11 A.M for personal hearing.Page 26 of 39
File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 Now, in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Appellate Authority by Section 19 (6) of Right to Information Act-2005, the Appellate Authority after carefully examining the facts of the case passes following order:
(a) As per CIC decision no. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, it is stipulated as follows:
i. No scope or repeating under RTI Act ii. Citizen has no right to repeat iii. Repetition shall be ground of refusal iv. Appeals can be rejected"
25. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
File No: CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.06.2024 CPIO replied on : 27.06.2024 First appeal filed on : 13.07.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 26.07.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.09.2024 Information sought:
26. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.06.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Information Under RTI Act 2005 w.r.t. to letter No.PAO/Cus/Pen/A.C.Meena/2021-22/122 dt 17.5.2024 of Mr. Anup Kumar Katoch, Sr.Account Officer, PAO, Commissionerate of Customs, NCH, New Delhi reg.
1. Please provide the information whether it is on record and CPIO is well aware, As service book of applicant had been verified by the same PAO &CPIO at the time of retirement of applicant, that the benefit of FR 22C, Page 27 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 now FR 22(1)(a)(1) has not been given to the applicant at the time of fixation of his pay on 24.10.2014, on his adhoc promotion as Assistant Commissioner which is available to each and every Government Servant on his promotion, but the said benefit of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) not given to the applicant as the adhoc promotion of applicant not treated as regular promotion, if not please provide the copy of pay fixation order as on 24.10.2014 of the applicant in which benefit of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) had been given.
2. Please provide the information whether it is true that without giving benefit of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) to the applicant at the time of fixation of his pay on 24.10.2014, on his adhoc promotion as Assistant Commissioner which is available to each and every Government Servant on his promotion, CPIO denied the benefit of order of stepping up issued by the competent authority and not revised PPO No.547002100184 counting adhoc promotion as regular promotion without giving the benefit of regular promotion which is a case of criminal conspiracy, if not please provide the details of benefit given to the applicant on his adhoc promotion which are admissible on regular promotion.
3. Please provide the information whether it is true that CPIO furnished misleading. contradictory and false information under a criminal conspiracy in point No. 3 & 5 of his letter No. PAO/Cus/Pen/A.C.Meena/2021-22/122 dt 17.5.2024 as in point No.3 he is giving reason for denial of benefit of stepping up of pay and revision of PPO of applicant of Para-20 of DOP&T OM dt. 22.10.2019, while in point No.5 of the same letter the same PAO raise objection in order of stepping up of pay and revision of PPO of applicant stating that the Pay fixation order of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena are not correct (vide PAO/CPIO letter No.PAO/Cus./Pen/AC Meena/2021-22/1685 dt.31.1.2023) on the basis of order of stepping up of pay of applicant has been issued by the competent authority of Concerned Commissionerate of Custom, if not please provide the copy of pay fixation order of applicant as on 24.10.2014 issued under FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) and other benefits applicable to a Government Servant or provided the copy of order under which re-fixation of pay of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena has been made if his pay actually was wrongly fixed."
Page 28 of 39File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842
27. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.06.2024 stating as under:
"7. In this regard it is stated that the Public Authority under the RTI Act is not supposed to create information or to interpret information, or to solve the problems raised by the applicant or furnish replies to hypothetical question. Only such information can be had under the Act which already exists with the public authority. The matter seems to be grievance in nature and RTI is not the forum to settle the grievance. As per RTI Act document/Note sheet are required to be provided by the CPIO.
8. Reply same as point no.1.
9. Reply same as point no.1."
28. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 26.07.2024, held as under:
"That, Sh. Anup Kumar Katoch who is CPIO of PAO, Commissionerate of Customs, CBIC, New Customs House, New Delhi had responded (vide his replies dated 11.06.2024, 26.06.2024, 27.06.2024 and 28.06.2024) to the applicant regarding his RTI applications dated 15.05.2024, 04.06.2024, 06.06.2024 and 07.06.2024 in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005. The applicant in his appeal has stated that details were not provided on some points and false, evasive and frivolous information was furnished on other points.
Hence, the appeals dated 04.07.2024, 10.07.2024, 13.07.2024 and 15.07.2024 have been filed.
Now, in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Appellate Authority by Section 19 (6) of Right to Information Act-2005, the Appellate Authority after carefully examining the facts of the case passes following order:
(a) Both the parties i.e. the appellant and CPIO, PAO, Customs, New Delhi were directed to appear before the First Appellate Authority on 23.07.2024 at 11 Α.Μ. Even though, the CPIO, PAO, Customs appeared Page 29 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814;
CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 before the First Appellate Authority, the appellant i.e. Sh. Amar Chand Meena did not appear before the First appellate Authority on the appointed date (23.07.2024).
(b) The requisite information has already been provided by the CPIO concerned.
(c) In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of in favour of CPIO, PAO. Customs, New Delhi."
29. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
File No: CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.06.2024 CPIO replied on : 26.06.2024 First appeal filed on : 10.07.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 26.07.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.09.2024 Information sought:
30. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.06.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Information Under RTI Act 2005 regarding issuance of revised PPO w.r.t. PPO No.547002100184 of applicant Amar Chand Meena in compliance of order dt.5.10.2021 and 16.01.2024 of Stepping up of pay of applicant in light of ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India of dated 06.04.2022 delivered on the identical issue of removal of anomaly of pay by stepping up of pay of senior where junior are drawing more pay than senior in the Page 30 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 case of UIO v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr citation-JT 2022 (4) SC reg. -
1. Please provide the copy of Notification/office order under which Sr. Account Officer of PAO has been recognized/ designated as HOD for the decide the applicability of the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered on the issue of removal of anomaly of pay by stepping up of pay of senior where junior are drawing more pay than senior in the case of UIO v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr citation-JT 2022 (4) SC, as stated by Mr. Anup Kumar Katoch, Sr. Account Officer in para-4 of his letter F. No. PAO/Cus/Pen/A.C.Meena/ 2021-22/122 dt.
17.5.2024 for information sought by applicant
2. Please provide the copy of Notification/office order under which Sr. Account Officer of PAO has been recognized/ designated as Competent authority/ Head of the Department to decide the applicability of the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered on the issue of removal of anomaly of pay by stepping up of pay of senior where junior are drawing more pay than senior in the case of UIO v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr citation- JT 2022 (4) SC, as stated by Mr. Anup Kumar Katoch, Sr. Account Officer in para-4 of his letter F. No.PAO/Cus/ Pen/A.C.Meena/ 2021-22/122 dt.17.5.2024 for information sought by applicant.
3. Please provide the information whether it is true that earlier my pension order with regards to PPO No.547002100184 not revised by CPIO/PAO taking plea that that pay fixation of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena, AC, (retd.) appears not in order, (on the basis order of stepping up of my pay has been issued), vide CPIO/PAO letter F.No.PAO/ Cus/Pen/A.C.Meena/2021-22/1685 dt.31.1.2023 address to Chief Account Officer, Commissionerate of Customs, ICD(import) TKD, New Delhi, but after submission of facts that fixation of Mr. Dharam Singh Meena is not incorrect and as such no order to re-fix his pay has been issued by CPIO/PAO, with mala fide intension CPIO/PAO has changed his own stand in letter F. No. PAO/Cus/Pen/A.C.Meena/ 2021-22/122 dt. 17.5.2024 stating that Revision of retirement benefit was denied as per order of DOPT Para no.20 of the OM no.35034/3/2015-Estt. (D) dt.22.10.2015 while it is not applicable after Ruling dt.6.4.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Page 31 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 India in the case of UIO & Ors v. Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr citation JT 2022 (4) SC, where Article 141 of the Constitution of India stipulated that Ruling of Apex court are binding to all, if not please proved copy of order of Government of India under which operation/ applicability of the Ruling of Apex Court has been stopped.
4. Please provide the information whether it is true that the benefit of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) has not been given to applicant at the time of fixation of my pay on 24.10.2014 on adhoc promotion as Assistant Commissioner (in lieu of MACP) but Department has counted this promotion as third Financial Up gradation (MACP) vide letter C.No.Il-34 (3) CCA/MACP/Misc./2015/15268 dt.5.1.2016 of the Additional Commissioner (CCA) Delhi Zone, Delhi and not granted benefit of MACP to me which was due on Feb. 2015 while the said benefit of FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) has been given to Sh. Dharam Singh Meena, AC (retd.) and sh. Neeraj Babu Jain, AD w.e.f. 1.7.2016 as such order of stepping up of my pay issued by the competent authority of Customs Commissionerate, ICD, Import, TKD, New Delhi on 5.10.2021 and again on 16.1.2024 is in order even as per para-20 of DOP&T ОМ no. 35034/3/2015-Estt. (D) dt.22.10.2015, if not please provide copy of fixation order of my pay fixed under FR 22C, now FR 22(1)(a)(1) as on 24.10.2014 on ad hoc promotion as Assistant Commissioner which has been counted as third Financial Up gradation (MACP) by the Department.
5. Please provide the name, designation and office address of the controlling Vigilance officer of PAO, Sr. Account Officer to file complaint as Mr. Anup Kumar Katoch, Sr. Account Officer provide false, misleading information under a criminal conspiracy in Point 04 of his F. No. PAO/Cus/ Pen/A.C.Meena/ 2021-22/122 dt. 17.5.2024 where I sought information of Competent authority/ Head of the Department for decide applicability of Ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in my case of stepping up of pay and revision of retirement benefits. but CPIO/Sr. Account Officer Mr. Anup Kumar Katoch is stating about HOO with mala fide intension to harm the applicant which is punishable under Section 166,167, 218. 219, 420 and 120B of IPC.
6. Please provide information whether any appeal/Write petition has been filed by the CPIO/PAO against the order dt. 08.04.2024 in Page 32 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 Second Appeal No. CIC/CBECE/A/2023/107214 of Hon'ble Central Information Commission New Delhi as information of point No.2 of my application dt.9.9.2022 has not been provided till now while the CPIO has been instructed by the Hon'ble CIC to provide the required information within four weeks' time, if yes please provide the details of the same, failing which contempt complaint will be file against CPIO."
31. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 26.06.2024 stating as under:
1. "In this regard it is stated that the Public Authority under the RTI Act is not supposed to create information or to interpret information, or to solve the problems raised by the applicant or furnish replies to hypothetical question. Only such information can be had under the Act which already exists with the public authority. The matter seems to be grievance in nature and RTI is not the forum to settle the grievance. As per RTI Act document/Note sheet are required to be provided by the CPIO.
2. Reply same as point no. 1.
3. It has been observed that several RTIs on the same subject have been received from your end and same replied has been provided by this office. As per RTI Act document/Note sheet are required to be provided by the CPIO.
4. Reply same as point no. 3
5. No specific post in this department.
6. No, the reply has already been provided to you via this office letter no.
F.NO. 111B/PAO/Cus/RTI/Amar Chand Meena/2023-24/61 dated 03/05/2024"
32. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 26.07.2024, held as under:
Page 33 of 39File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 "That, Sh. Anup Kumar Katoch who is CPIO of PAO, Commissionerate of Customs, CBIC, New Customs House, New Delhi had responded (vide his replies dated 11.06.2024, 26.06.2024, 27.06.2024 and 28.06.2024) to the applicant regarding his RTI applications dated 15.05.2024, 04.06.2024, 06.06.2024 and 07.06.2024 in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005. The applicant in his appeal has stated that details were not provided on some points and false, evasive and frivolous information was furnished on other points.
Hence, the appeals dated 04.07.2024, 10.07.2024, 13.07.2024 and 15.07.2024 have been filed.
Now, in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Appellate Authority by Section 19 (6) of Right to Information Act-2005, the Appellate Authority after carefully examining the facts of the case passes following order:
(a) Both the parties i.e. the appellant and CPIO, PAO, Customs, New Delhi were directed to appear before the First Appellate Authority on 23.07.2024 at 11 A.M. Even though, the CPIO, PAO, Customs appeared before the First Appellate Authority, the appellant i.e. Sh. Amar Chand Meena did not appear before the First appellate Authority on the appointed date (23.07.2024).
(b) The requisite information has already been provided by the CPIO concerned.
(c) In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of in favour of CPIO, PAO, Customs, New Delhi."
33. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person Page 34 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 Respondent: Shri Vasudevan Vimal, Sr. Account Officer; Shri Kailash Prasad Yadav, Assistant Account Officer; and Shri Jagbir Singh, Sr. Accountant, appeared in person.
34. Proof of having served copies of Second Appeals on Respondent while filing the same in CIC are not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-services. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.
35. The Appellant inter alia submitted that he is not satisfied with the replies furnished by the Respondent Public Authority on the ground that the same are incomplete, evasive and misleading. He further contended that the matter involves deliberate inaction on the part of the CPIO, alleging that the Pay & Accounts Office, Customs, New Custom House, New Delhi has not issued the revised PPO nor revised his retirement benefits despite orders of stepping up of his pay issued by the competent authority. He submitted that his pay was required to be stepped up at par with Shri Dharam Singh Meena, Assistant Commissioner (Retd.) and Shri Neeraj Babu Jain, Additional Director, DGHRD, who were junior to him but drawing higher pay, and the failure to implement the same reflects mala fide intent. However, till date satisfactory information was not provided by the Respondent Authorities.
36. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise replies to all the RTI applications have already been furnished to the Appellant within the stipulated time and the same have also been upheld by the respective First Appellate Authorities. It was stated that all available and relevant documents pertaining to the queries raised by the Appellant have already been provided. The Respondent further clarified that the issues raised by the Appellant are essentially grievance-oriented and cannot be adjudicated under the provisions of the RTI Act. It was also submitted that similar issues have been raised earlier by the Appellant, which have already been adjudicated and disposed of by the Commission in File No. CIC/CBECE/A/2023/107212.
Page 35 of 39File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842
37. The Respondent additionally submitted that, with a view to bringing finality to the matter, they had brought the complete records/files relating to the Appellant's pay fixation, promotion, and related issues during the hearing and expressed their willingness to facilitate inspection of the same by the Appellant, along with providing certified copies of the documents identified by him free of cost. However, the Appellant declined to avail the opportunity of inspection and instead insisted on redressal of his grievance.
Decision:
38. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant, through multiple RTI applications, sought information primarily relating to the issuance of revised Pension Payment Order (PPO), stepping up of pay, and the alleged non-compliance of departmental orders and judicial pronouncements.
39. The Commission observes that the CPIO has furnished point-wise replies to the RTI applications and has also provided relevant documents available on record, including copies of orders, note sheets, and details of the concerned officers wherever such information existed. In respect of certain queries, the CPIO has clarified that the information sought was not available in material form or that the queries were in the nature of seeking interpretation, clarification, or justification, which does not fall within the ambit of "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
40. Upon perusal of the records, the Commission notes that a substantial portion of the queries raised by the Appellant are argumentative in nature and seek explanations, opinions, or adjudication on service-related issues such as pay fixation, stepping up of pay, and pensionary benefits. Such matters essentially pertain to redressal of grievances and cannot be addressed under the RTI Act. The RTI Act is not a mechanism for adjudicating disputes or for directing the public authority to justify its actions or decisions.
41. The Commission further observes that similar queries have been raised repeatedly by the Appellant through multiple RTI applications on the same Page 36 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 subject matter. The repeated filing of RTI applications seeking substantially identical information indicates that the Appellant is attempting to pursue his grievance through the RTI route, which is not the intended purpose of the Act. The appropriate remedy for such grievances lies before the competent administrative authority or the appropriate judicial forum. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Appellant replied that he has not raised his grievances before any authority except filing of various RTI Applications.
42. The Commission also takes note of the submission of the Respondent that, with a view to bringing finality to the matter and ensuring transparency, the complete records/files relating to the Appellant's pay fixation, promotion and connected issues were produced before the Commission and the Respondent expressed willingness to facilitate inspection of the same by the Appellant, along with provision of certified copies of documents identified by him free of cost during the hearing. However, the Appellant categorically declined to avail of the said opportunity of inspection and obtaining copies.
43. The Commission also takes note that the First Appellate Authority, in its orders, has either directed the CPIO to provide additional clarification wherever deemed necessary or upheld the replies furnished by the CPIO, concluding that the available information had already been provided. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Respondent has mala fidely denied any information that is available and disclosable under the RTI Act.
44. The reliance is placed on the following observations made by in the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, (2011) 8 SCC497:
35......... But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant..............."
....
Page 37 of 39File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 ....
"67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace; tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
45. Further, it is important to note that DoP&T vide OM No. 1/7/2009-IR dated 01.06.2009 and 20.05.2011 had informed that the High Court of Bombay at Goa in its decision dated 03.04.2018 in WP (C) no. 419 of 2007 in the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs. Goa State Information Commission, has observed as under:
"The definition of information cannot include within its fold answer to the question why which would be same thing as asking the reasons for a justification for particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
46. In view of the above observations and facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission concludes that adequate and appropriate information, as available on record with the Respondent Public Authority, has been Page 38 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 provided to the Appellant. The intervention of the Commission is not warranted in these matters.
The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Pay & Accounts Office, Commissionerate of Customs, Room No. 232-233, New Custom House, Near IGI Airport Cargo Terminal, New Delhi - 110037 Page 39 of 39 File Nos: CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/125637; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126811; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126814; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126685; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/126683; CIC/CCCDZ/A/2024/129512; CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128841 and CIC/CBECE/A/2024/128842 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)