Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sachin Pathania vs Controller General Of Defence Accounts ... on 19 February, 2026

                           के ीय सूचना आयोग
                     Central Information Commission
                        बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                      नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/CGDAC/A/2024/644447


Sachin Pathania                                    ....अपीलकता/Appellant


                                 VERSUS
                                  बनाम


                                             .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
1. The CPIO O/o the Principal
Controller of Defence Accounts
(Pension), Draupadighat, Prayagraj
- 211014
2. The Oi/c, Sparsh, Civil Section,
Draupadighat, Prayagraj - 211014


Date of Hearing                 : 16.02.2026
Date of Decision                : 19.02.2026


INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL

Relevant facts emerging from the second appeal:


RTI application filed on    :         02.08.2024
CPIO replied on             :         04.09.2024
First appeal filed on       :         07.09.2024
First Appellate Authority's :         04.10.2024
order
Second Appeal dated         :         08.10.2024

                                                                   Page 1 of 8
   Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.08.2024 seeking the following information:

"The following information pertaining to PPO No. 899199300075 of Smt. Sandhya W/o Babu Ram Pathania is required. (1) Provide me the mobile number attached with the PPO No. 899199300075.

(2) Provide me the name and designation of the public servant along with complete postal address whose mobile number is attached with the above PPO.

(3) Provide me the date of the initiation of death of Smt. Sandhya.

(4) Provide me the mac id of the device used for initiation of the death of Smt. Sandhya.

(5) Provide me the details of the device used for initiation of the death of Smt. Sandhya.

(6) Provide me the details IP address used for the initiation of death of Smt. Sandhya.

(7) Provide me the details date and the name of the person, designation along with complete postal address who shifted the PPO number as mentioned above to SPARSH portal. (8) Provide me the details of the person who reported/selected "NO" in the SPARSH data base in the column - Do you want to claim for Family Pensioner.

(9) Provide me the details - date and time, on which the option "NO" selected.

(10) Provide me the details with whom my all documents of pension (forwarded through post) are pending with and what action has been taken by him till date. (11) Provide me the name/s, designation/s along with the complete postal address of the person along with number of days my pension documents are pending with. (12) Provide me the details of the senior of the person as mentioned in point no. 11.

(13) Provide me the details of the competent authority stating just hold the pension documents for years or sit over the pension documents and as a public servant you need not to reply to the beneficiary/claimant.

(14) Provide me the communications if any made with me for pension from public servant/s.

(15) Use only email id [email protected] or registered post. (16) No third party information has been sought, for kind information and NΑ."

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 04.09.2024 stating as under:

"With reference to above it is intimated that you have not sought for any specific information as defined in sec 2(f) of RTI Act-2005 rather tried to settle your grievance. In this regard, it is stated that as per DOPT guideline on RTI, CPIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problem raised by the applicant or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions like why, how e.t.c. or to furnish clarification raised under RTI Act. Only that information can be furnished under RTI Act that is available with the public authority in any material form (Soft or Hard Copy).

However, your application is being forwarded to section concerned of this office with a view to settle your grievance and outcome will be directly informed to you. Further, communication in this regard may be made with the officer-in-charge, Sparsh Civil Section of this office.

(Direction by CPIO(ACDA) The Oi/c, Sparsh Civil Section,Local w.r.t. above referenced application (copy enclosed), it is requested that necessary action may be taken at your end and the same may please be communicated directly to the Applicant (as above) under intimation to this cell.)

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.09.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 04.10.2024 stated as under:

"(1) Miss Sachin Pathania vide her RTI application dt. 20/06/2024, had desired family pension as an unmarried daughter dependent. Accordingly reply was furnished by the CPIO vide letter No. AN/RTI/1475/SP/2024 dt. 03/07/2024 wherein it was stated that no information has been sought for as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act rather appellant was seeking redressal of grievances and the case was forwarded to Sparsh civil section of this office for appropriate disposal at their end. (2) Appellant vide his appeal dt. 14/08, 23.08, 07.09 and 11.09.2024 has contended regarding non receipt of information and desires reply to queries raised vide her RTI application at various dates. (3) A reply in this regard was forwarded vide this office letter no AN/RTI/2021-civil sparsh letter no 2072-2281/SP/2024 Dated 09.09.2024, alongwith civil/sparsh/T2/2024 Dated 06.09.2024 where in it was stated that the account became "INACTIVE"

(4) The undersigned has carefully gone through the matter. It is seen that the appellant desires redressal of her grievances which is beyond the purview of RTI Act. It is needless to say that RTI is not a platform for grievance settlement as brought out in numerous orders of the CIC. Moreover, the RTI Act does not require the Public Information Officer to deduce conclusion from the 'material' and supply the same to the applicant. However the same was treated as grievance and working by the section concern was on to resolve the problem. But due to some technical error the problem took time and finally it was resolved and a PPO no 801199300464 corr. Number 3 is generated. A copy of the same is enclosed herewith for necessary action. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present Respondent: Mr. Akhilesh Garg, CGDA Page 4 of 8

5. Proof of having served a copy of complaints on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.

6. The Appellant not present despite the serving of notice of hearing.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.08.2024 through the online RTI portal seeking detailed information pertaining to PPO No. 899199300075 including the mobile number linked to the said PPO, name, designation, and complete postal address of the public servant whose mobile number was attached with the PPO etc. It is also submitted that the then CPIO, Mr. Virendra Kumar, ACDA, vide reply dated 04.09.2024, stated that the applicant had not sought any specific information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, and that the RTI application was in the nature of a grievance. The then CPIO further informed that the RTI application was being forwarded to the concerned section for redressal of the grievance. It is also submitted that the FAA order dated 04.10.2024 it was informed to the appellant that the matter was treated as a grievance and was being processed by the concerned section for resolution. Due to certain technical errors, the issue took time.

8. Written submissions dated 10.02.2026 filed by the respondent is taken on record, wherein it has been stated that the RTI application dated 02.08.2024 was initially responded to vide letter dated 04.09.2024, as the queries were in the nature of grievance redressal rather than seeking information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. It is further submitted that the First Appeal dated 07.09.2024 was duly disposed of on 04.10.2024, informing the appellant that the concerned account had become "INACTIVE." It is further stated that upon receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission, the matter was re-examined and a point- wise reply has been furnished. The respondent has provided the revised PPO number, relevant mobile numbers available in records, date of receipt of death report on the SPARSH portal (24.11.2023), reporter details as per SPARSH records, and informed that PPO No. 801199300464 (Corr. No. 3) for family pension in respect of Miss Sachin Pathania was generated on 04.10.2024 and arrears of family pension were paid in October 2024. It is submitted that the available information has been furnished and the grievance now stands resolved.

Decision:

9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties present and perusal of the records and written submissions, notes that the Appellant had sought specific information relating to PPO No. 899199300075 concerning Smt. Sandhya, including details such as the mobile number linked with the PPO, name and designation of the concerned public servant, date and technical details relating to initiation of death entry in the SPARSH portal, IP address, MAC ID, and particulars of the officials who selected the option "No" regarding claim of family pension.

The Commission also notes that the then CPIO Mr. Virendra Kumar, ACDA denied the information on dated 04.09.2024 by stating that the sought information does not fall within the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and treated the application as a grievance. The Commission observes that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines information to include material in any form, including records, documents, e-mails, log books, data material held in electronic form, etc. Therefore, if the details sought by the Appellant were available in official records or electronic databases such as the SPARSH portal, the same would squarely fall within the ambit of "information" under the Act.

The Commission further notes that the reply of the CPIO did not mention the details of the First Appellate Authority, which is mandatory under Section 7(8)(iii) of the RTI Act. Such omission reflects lack of due diligence on the part of then CPIO in handling statutory RTI matters.

At the same time, the Commission also takes note of the FAA's observation that the matter was treated as a grievance and resolved after addressing certain technical issues, resulting in generation of a PPO. However, the FAA order does not clearly adjudicate whether the information sought under the RTI Act was duly furnished by the CPIO or not.

The Commission further notes that point-wise information was furnished to the appellant only after receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission. This indicates that the information was available or could have been accessed earlier with due diligence. The Commission observes that the then CPIO and FAA failed to properly examine the RTI application Page 6 of 8 within the framework of the RTI Act and to provide a reasoned response in accordance with law.

The Commission also notes that the appellant was not present during the hearing nor did she submitted any written submission or rejoinder to the written submissions file by the respondents. Which indicates that perhaps she is not keen to pursue the matter further. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted on the second appeal.

Notwithstanding the above, the Commission admonishes the conduct of the then CPIO, Mr. Virendra Kumar, ACDA for having dealt with the RTI application in a casual and mechanical manner and for failing to exercise due diligence and he is directed to remain cautious in future.

With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (संजीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) date: 19.02.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S K Chitkara) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:

1. The CPIO ACDA, O/o the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Draupadighat, Prayagraj - 211014

2. The CPIO The Oi/c, Civil Sparsh, Local, Draupadighat, Prayagraj - 211014 Page 7 of 8

3. Then CPIO Mr. Virendra Kumar, ACDA O/o the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Draupadighat, Prayagraj - 211014

4. Miss Sachin Pathania Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)