Central Information Commission
Shubhankar Srivastav vs Department Of Administrative Reforms & ... on 18 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DARPG/A/2022/636807
Shubhankar Srivastav ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Administrative
Reforms and Public Grievances,
RTI Cell, Sardar Patel Bhawan,
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05/04/2023
Date of Decision : 08/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13/02/2022
CPIO replied on : 24/02/2022
First appeal filed on : 06/03/2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 08/04/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30/06/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.02.2022 seeking the following information:1
"This is regarding the unsatisfactory response received from the concerned department. The complaint was against The SP Memorial Institute of Technology (Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University College Code 364) for not clearing the pending salary of my wife (Former teaching faculty of SPMIT) Grievance no: GOVUP/E/2021/32410 Complaint Date of Receipt: 05/07/2021 It has already been mentioned in the complaint that Namrata Srivastava had left the concerned college (SP Memorial Institute of Technology) on November 6, 2020 and College ERP is only for present college staff:
1: When Namrata Srivastava had already resigned from the college around 8 months back Why Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University is asking to raise this complaint through ERP College ERP is for present college staff only 2: Why Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University is not contacting with the college director Ms. ViJayshree Tiwari [email protected] Contact number 9415214707 this complaint is against college director (Evidence had been attached) 3: Why the above university has not done any investigation or not taken any action against this college even after several complaints 4: This case is regarding an ex-employee of the college hence let me know Who is the right concerned person with whom should I connect regarding this complaint and share his/ her contact details.
5: If no action has been taken yet, then please take the action and let me know the updates on this 6: In how many days I should expect to get this full and final settlement of pending salary and dues."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 24.02.2022 stated as under:
"Sir, no information is available with the undersigned as the matter is closely related with the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh. You have also lodged grievance 2 online with the state govt. public grievance portal. please contact CPIO concerned in the state govt. of U.P."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.03.2022. FAA's order, dated 08.04.2022, held as under:
"As per 7th Schedule of constitution the matter pertains to State Government. Its jurisdictional issue. DARPG does not have any jurisdiction over the issue raised by you. However, details enclosed for your ready reference as generated through system.
As such OM has been issued for resolution of Grievance in 45 days."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:
"The First appeal reply says, this matter belongs to UP State Government, but this RTI is on Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India, Grievance no GOVUP/E/2021/32410 and Required information belongs a Management Institute, which is regulated by AICTE and Ministry of HRD, which is again a central government matter. Hence, I am unsatisfied with the answer given in the First Appeal. It is therefore kindly requested that the required information is provided as soon as possible.
I have also appealed to several other government platforms, like UP Government Jan-Sunwai portal, Complaint email to the District Magistrate of Prayagraj, UP, Joint Education Director in UP Government, Dr A.P.J Abdul Kamal Technical University, Lucknow etc. But I have not received any reply or support from any of the above. Which is quite injustice at my end.
I am aggrieved by the decision/no decision of Central Officer and First Appellate Authority, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Prashant Pandey, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.3
The Appellant argued at length on the lines of the grounds of Second Appeal agitating that none of the State Govt. authorities are taking necessary action or redressing his grievance, therefore the Commission has to intervene to instruct the Central Govt. to facilitate him with information and action as desired.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and stated that no action is pending at the end of DARPG.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The insistence of the Appellant is not to access information as envisaged under the RTI Act but seeks to channelise his grievance against the concerned State Govt. Here, 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."
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", 4 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) Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter and advises the Appellant to pursue the grievance before the appropriate forum.
The CPIO is however directed to send a copy of their written submissions dated 23.03.2023 to the Appellant within 2 days of the receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहा न)
Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक /
5