Central Information Commission
Ajay Kumar vs Indian Council For Cultural Relations on 20 January, 2023
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ICCRL/C/2021/149206
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/ICCRL/A/2021/149236
Shri Ajay Kumar ... अपीलकता /Appellant
Through: Shri Ajay Kumar and Shri Rohit ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
Ganguly - Advocates
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Indian Council for Cultural Relations ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri Malkit Chand - CPIO and
Shri Imamuddin - Computer Operator
Date of Hearing : 19.01.2023
Date of Decision : 20.01.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
149206 23.08.2021 07.09.2021 - - 17.11.2021
149236 02.07.2021 30.07.2021 23.08.2021 26.08.2021 17.11.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/ICCRL/C/2021/149206 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 23.08.2021 and the CPIO/Director, Indian Council for Cultural Relations, vide letter dated 07.09.2021 replied as under:-Page 1 of 5
Dissatisfied with the reply, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 12.01.2023 has been submitted by the CPIO, ICCR reiterating the above facts and providing detailed background about information provided so far to the Complainant.
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and the Complainant's counsels present on his behalf stated that the Complainant had been deputed as a Hindi Teacher in Moscow. However, after joining service he came to know that his colleagues viz. the third parties about whom he had sought information were being paid more foreign allowance than him. Hence the queries were raised vide the aforementioned RTI Application. The Advocates for the Complainant contended that the denial of information by Respondent with respect to the query, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was in contravention of the Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the Act. Respondent stated that information as permissible under the RTI Act, had been duly furnished to the Complainant.
Decision Before deciding the case on its merits, it is important to visit the exact provision of the Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the Act, which casts obligation on the public authority to publish:
"...The monthly remuneration received by each of the officers and employees including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations..."
Query number 1 raised by the Complainant in this case pertains to the copy of Offer of Appointment and Pay Authority issued to three Hindi teachers who are third parties in this case. The copy of offer of appointment of a third person cannot be construed as information about monthly remuneration of a public servant. The Apex Court discussed this aspect in its decision dated 13.11.2019 in the [Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010] CPIO, Supreme Court vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal and held as under:
"...59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, Page 2 of 5 physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information..."
Thus in the light of the aforementioned, the PIO's reply is upheld as it conforms to the established legal position as noted above. Considering the fact that the instant case is a Complaint and information held by the Respondent has been duly disseminated in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act and no case of wilful obstruction of information or deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent is noted. Hence no cause of action exists for initiating action under Section 18 of the RTI Act in this case.
The Complaint is disposed off as such.
(2) CIC/ICCRL/A/2021/149236 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.07.2021 and the CPIO/Director, Indian Council for Cultural Relations, vide letter dated 30.07.2021 replied as under:-Page 3 of 5
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.08.2021. The FAA/Joint Secretary, Indian Council for Cultural Relations, vide order dated 26.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 4 of 5
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 12.01.2023 has been submitted by the CPIO, ICCR reiterating the above facts and providing a detailed background.
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and the Appellant's counsels contended that the Appellant was aggrieved by the alleged discrimination in payments made by the Respondent to him vis-vis his other colleagues. The Respondent stated that Hindi teachers are deputed on the basis of certain terms and conditions and their ranks also differ on the basis of their qualification and experience. ICCR has different terms and conditions for various personnel which are specified at the time of appointment.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the records of the case at hand and after hearing averments of the parties, it is noted that information available on record with the public authority and as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been furnished by the Respondent to the Appellant. Grievance of the Appellant about pay discrimination cannot be addressed under the scope and ambit of the RTI Act and the Appellant is advised to seek appropriate legal remedy in this regard.
The Commission finds no legal infirmity in the response sent by the Respondent and hence no further action is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed off as such.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5