Central Information Commission
Asit Kumar Ghosh vs South Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 26 June, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SERLK/A/2023/118936
Asit Kumar Ghosh .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Sr. DPO O/o Divisional Railway Manager,
South Eastern Railway, DRM Building,
Kharagpur, West Bengal-721301. .....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.06.2024
Date of Decision : 25.06.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.12.2022
CPIO replied on : 02.01.2023
First appeal filed on : 27.01.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 14.02.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.04.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.12.2022 seeking the following information:
"1). That due to avail medical facility (Indoor + outdoor) from Defence Personnel, for which I had not applied for RELHS Card from Railway Authority though I am eligible for Fixed Medical Allowance of Rs 1000/-Page 1 of 7
but deprived the same, at the same time - Mr. Dibakar Koley, Retd. LP(Goods)/KGP, PPO No. 20217070100243, Emp. No. 50714100061, Retired on 31-05-2021, had regularly drawn Rs 1000/- with his pension amount though he had availed medical facility from Defence personnel, but I am deprived the same. "
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 02.01.2023 stating as under:
"Your RTI seems to be grievance and doesn't come under purview of RTI Act U/s 2(f)."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.01.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 14.02.2023, held as under: -
"Your appeal dated 27/01/2023 has been considered carefully and the requisite information as sought for duly communicated vide PIO & Sr. DPO/KGP's letter No. SER/P-KGP/740/RTI/11418(Appeal) dated 09/02/2023 in prescribed format containing Two (02 pages) are enclosed herewith for your ready reference. This is for your information."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"9. Information sought:
That, I am availing Medical facility (Indoor & Outdoor) from Defence Personnel and after retirement from Railway Service w.e.f. 30.06.2021, I had not applied for RELHS Card as it is already been issued from Defence Personnel though I am eligible for fixed Medical Allowance of Rs.1,000/- from Railway Administration.
Mr. Dibakar Koley, Retd. LP (Goods/KGP), PPO No.20217070100243, Emp. No.50714100061, Retired on 31.05.2021, had regularly draw Rs.1000/- with his Pension amount though he had availed Medical facility (Indoor & Outdoor) from Defence Personnel but I am deprived the same."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Represented by Shri Chanchal Kumar, APO present through video-conference.Page 2 of 7
Written submission dated 10.06.2024 filed by Ms. Shreya Shandilya, Sr. DPO/CPIO, S.E. Railway, Kharagpur is taken on record.
Appellant while reiterating the contents of instant Appeal pleaded that neither satisfactory reply has been supplied by the Respondent nor his grievance has been resolved till date. He urged the Commission to intervene in the matter and provide him requested benefits.
Respondent reiterated the contents of averred written submission, contents of which are reproduced below for the sake of clarity -
"Here, it is pertinent to mention that the information sought for in the RTI request dated 19.12.2022 of Asit Kumar Ghosh is "That due to avail medical facility (Indoor + Outdoor) from Defence Personnel, for which I had not applied for RELHS Card from Railway Authority though I am eligible for Fixed Medical Allowance of Rs 1000/- but deprived the same time- Mr. Dibakar Koley, Retd. LP (Goods)/KGP, PPO No. 20217070100243, Emp. No. 50714100061, Retired on 31.05.2021, had regularly drawn Rs 1000/- with his pension amount though he had availed medical facility from Defence personnel, but I am deprived the same."
In this connection it is to mention that the information sought for by the applicant related to Mr. Dibakar Koley, Ex. LP (Goods)/KGP, PPO No. 20217070100243, Emp. No. 50714100061 retired on 31.05.2021, is purely personal details pertaining to retired employee who happens to be a third party, which was already been replied vide this office letter No. SER/P-KGP/740/RTI/11340 dated 02.01.2023.
Further, he has preferred First Appeal dated 02.01.2023 to FAA&ADRM/KGP, which has also been disposed vide Appellate Order No.ADRM/KGP/RTI/Appeal/1367/Reply dated 14.02.2023 (Photocopy along with its enclosure are enclosed).
Simultaneously, as his case appeared to be a grievance, he was advised also to lodge his grievance at the proper forum in railway but till date no such grievance has been found to be lodged by him in Grievance Cell of this office.
From the above, it is clear that earlier reply given vide this office letter No.SER/P- KGP/740/RTI/11340 dated 02.01.2023 still stands good.Page 3 of 7
Further, it is to mention that Sri Asit Kumar Ghosh has been exempted from mandatory contribution of RELHS since he had already enrolled with other Central Government Medical Scheme in terms of Railway Board's letter dated 31.07.2018 (Photocopy enclosed).
Since, RELHS exemption is extended on the basis of already availing Medical facility (Outdoor + Indoor) from other Central Government Medical scheme as a Retired Defence Personnel. As such, the FMA was not sanctioned correctly in favour of Asit Kumar Ghosh, Ex-Sr. Clerk, by the Pension Sanctioning Authority. Moreover, it is to mention that the case of FMA (Fixed Medical Allowance) of Mr. Dibakar Koley, Ex. LP (Goods)/KGP, PPO No. 20217070100243, Emp. No. 50714100061, Retired on 31.05.2021, has been examined by the pension sanctioning authority and it is found from his Air Force PPO that he was already granted Medical Allowance from their end @ Rs. 100/- per month w.e.f. on 01.04.2000.
Hence, Associate Accounts of Kharagpur Division, S. E. Railway has already been requested to stop FMA of Mr. Koley and also to arrange for necessary recoveries of the paid FMA amount, vide this office letter No. SER/P-KGP/Sett/657/FMA/DK/2024 dated 18.04.2024 (photocopy enclosed)."
Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to facts and circumstances of the case and upon a perusal of the facts on record finds that the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the reply provided by the Respondent is bereft of merit as the contents of RTI Application do not strictly conform to the definition of "information" as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act. It appears that the Appellant is harbouring a grievance and is not seeking access to information as envisaged under the RTI Act. Despite this, the CPIO has clarified the doubts of the Appellant through written submission dated 10.06.2024 which is treated as revised reply in the spirit of RTI Act.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subjected to penal provisions under the RTI Act.Page 4 of 7
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority"
under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
Page 5 of 7"..... Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."Page 6 of 7
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the above, no intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, ADRM O/o Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern railway, DRM Building, Kharagpur, West Bengal - 721301.Page 7 of 7
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)