Shailen Karmakar vs Department Of Expenditure on 1 September, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shailen Karmakar vs Department Of Expenditure on 1 September, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 21.02.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated10.11.2018 and first appeal dated 12.12.2018:-

(i) Name and designation of the officer who had exercised power on behalf of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure under the Rule 254 of GFR, 2005 in the case of my posting against the vacant STS post, CBDT, Kolkata vide Order No. A 32013/8/2012/Gr. A/265-276 dated 12.02.2013, since, as per the Rule 254 Page 1 of 4 of GFR, 2005, only the Ministry of Department having the appointing power of both the lower and higher cadre posts could operate the Rule.

(ii) To provide the photocopy of the complete set of the documents/note sheets on which the Officer mentioned at Sr. No. 1 above accorded his approval the Rule 254 of GFR, 2005, in the case of my posting against the vacant STS Post, CBDT, Kolkata vide Order No. A 32013/8/2012/Gr. A/265-276 dated 12.02.2013.

(iii) (i) Number (how many) of cases, with the names of the officers (ACAs), in which the ACAs (JTS) level officers) have been posted against the higher post in terms of Rule 254 of GFR, 2005 (Edition 2010) from 01.01.2010 to 31.01.2014.

(ii) Certified photocopy of the posting orders of such cases mentioned at Sl. No.

(iii) (i) above.

(iii) Certified photocopy of the complete set of note sheets of Group A Section, O/o the CGA on which the CGA and the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure approved such postings explicitly in terms of the Rule 254 of GFR, 2005 during the period 2012 and 2013.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 10.11.2018under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Expenditure, O/o Controller General of Accounts, INA Colony, New Delhi,seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 10.12.2018. Dissatisfiedwith the response of the CPIO, the appellant has filed first appeal dated12.12.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the first appeal vide its order dated 09.01.2019. Aggrieved by that, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 21.02.2019before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 21.02.2019 inter alia on the grounds that the disclosure of the information was crucial for submission of his claim for re- fixation of his pay and retirement benefits. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information immediately and take necessary action as per sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

Page 2 of 4

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 10.12.2018 denied the information stating that information sought was third party information, hence could not be provided under clause (j) of sub section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 09.01.2019 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Vipen Kumar, Sr. A.O. & CPIO, CGA, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Delhi attended the hearing through in person.

5.1. The appellant inter alia stated that he retired from government services on 31.01.2014. The appellant further stated that before his retirement he was posted against a vacant higher post to perform the duties of that post and that his Cadre Controlling Authority had denied him some very essential information. Therefore, he had filed RTI application. The appellant stated that he had suffered financial loss of Rs. 1,010/-. 5.2. The respondent submitted that the information provided by the appellant was posted against higher vacancy posts through the powers vested in Office of Controller General Accounts. Further, the appellant had sought hypothetical data which was not maintained or available under their custody in material form.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO through letter dated 10.12.2018. Further, the appellant was at liberty to raise grievances before appropriate forum as the redressal of the same was beyond the scope of RTI Act. That being so, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 31.08.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES:

CPIO :

DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE O/o CONTROLLER GENERAL OF ACCOUNTS, MAHALEKHA NIYANTRAK BHAWAN, GPO COMPLEX, INA COLONY, NEW DELHI - 110 023 THE F.A.A, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE, O/o CONTROLLER GENERAL OF ACCOUNTS, MAHALEKHA NIYANTRAK BHAWAN, GPO COMPLEX, INA COLONY, NEW DELHI - 110023 SH. SHAILEN KARMAKAR Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission