Central Information Commission
Rahul vs Ministry Of Youth Affairs & Sports on 20 March, 2026
CIC/MOYAS/C/2025/604179
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/MOYAS/C/2025/604179
Rahul ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: National
Anti-Doping Agency (M/o. Youth ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Affairs & Sports), New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 12.11.2024 FA : Nil. Complaint : 23.01.2025
CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record Hearing : 17.03.2026
Date of Decision: 17.03.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
a) Details of all the Regular Employees who were granted the Non-Productive Linked Bonus (ad-hoc Bonus) alongwith amount?
b) Details of all the Casual/Contractual Employees who were granted the Non-
Productive Linked Bonus (ad-hoc Bonus) alongwith amount?
Page 1 of 6CIC/MOYAS/C/2025/604179
c) Details of all the Outsourced Employees who were granted the Non-Productive Linked Bonus (ad-hoc Bonus) alongwith amount?
d) According to aforesaid OM dated 10-10-2024, the Casual/Contractual Employees who have worked in office for atleast 206 days during each of the last 3 years are eligible for Non-Productive Linked Bonus. The amount payable will be Rs. 1184/- (Rs. 1200x30/30.4). In this regard, kindly clarify on what basis Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Panel Assistant (Casual/Contractual Employee) was granted an amount of Rs. 6908/- towards Non-Productive Linked Bonus?..etc.
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal on Nil. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 23.01.2025.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Shri Ajeet Singh, AAO- participated in the hearing
5. The Respondent, while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Complainant. He averred that the instant RTI Application was not received in their office. He further stated they had received an email dated 02.07.2025 from the Complainant and reply in this regard was furnished on 14.07.2025. PIO furnished reply 14.07.2025 as under:
"..A to c :. Name & designation of the official Admissible amount
1. Sh. Ajeet Singh, Acct.-cm-Admn. Off. 6,908.00
2. Sh. B.J. Verma, Asst. Proj. Off. 4,030.00
3. Sh. Jay Singh, Asst. Proj. Off. 6,908,00 Page 2 of 6 CIC/MOYAS/C/2025/604179
4. Ms. Hema, Accountant 6,908.00
5. Sh. Ajit, Admn. Asst. 6,908.00
6. Ms Archana Singh 6,908.00
7. Sh Rakesh Kumar, Panel Asst 6908 d to e As to why, how and to clerify do not come under the ambit of RTI Act 2005.."
6. A written submission dated 09.03.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..I am directed to refer to the Notice vide F. No. CIC/MOYAS/C/2025/604179 dated 20.02.2026 issued by the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, directing the CPIO, National Anti-Doping Agency, to appear for a hearing scheduled on 17.03.2026 in connection with the appeal/complaint filed by the Appellant concerning the RTI application dated 12.11.2024. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the CPIO, NADA had duly sent a reply to the RTI application through Speed Post vide Tracking No. ED018566578IN at the address provided by the Appellant in the RTI application. However, as per the records available with this office, the said Speed Post article was returned undelivered with the remark "No such person available." A copy of the Speed Post tracking report is annexed herewith as Annexure-A and a copy of the RTI reply is annexed as Annexure-B for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Commission.
It is further submitted that, in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Commission, the reply to the RTI application is being again been sent to the Appellant through Speed Post at the address available on record. Additionally, the reply is also being uploaded on the Commission's online portal/link as mentioned in the Notice of the Hon'ble Commission. In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the CPIO, NADA has duly complied with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by providing the reply to the Page 3 of 6 CIC/MOYAS/C/2025/604179 RTI application. The non-delivery of the earlier communication occurred due to the reason recorded by the postal authorities and was beyond the control of this office. This submission is placed before the Hon'ble Commission for kind consideration.."
Decision:
7. Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act . Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
8. Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Page 4 of 6 CIC/MOYAS/C/2025/604179 Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
9. Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
10. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no Page 5 of 6 CIC/MOYAS/C/2025/604179 action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Section Officer-(RTI Section), National Anti-Doping Agency (M/o. Youth Affairs & Sports), J.L.N. Stadium Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2 Rahul Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)