Central Information Commission
Smt. Devmati vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 10 February, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NRALF/A/2018/136779
Smt. Devmati ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/O. Railways, Northern ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Railway, Lucknow-226001, UP.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 24-02-2018 FA : 13-04-2018 SA : 11-06-2018
CPIO : 28-01-2020 FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 10-02-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o Railways, Northern Railway, Lucknow seeking information on six points pertaining to her applications dated 30.09.2016, 06.06.2017 and 19.12.2017 whereby age verification records were sent in order to correct the age error in her pension records - PPO No. 54384, including, inter-alia;
"1. How long will it take to mark the correct age of the appellant in her pension records on the basis of the age verification provided by her along with the above noted applications, Page 1 of 5
2. Why the employee's 6th pay commission case has not been sent from the Security department to Pension section,
3. When and how much pension amount will be paid to the appellant with respect to her age and 6th pay Commission, etc."
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 13.04.2018 requesting to provide the information sought for. Since the first appeal was not disposed of by the FAA, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on this ground and requested the Commission to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The appellant's representative, Shri Bajrang Prasad Shukla, and the respondent, Shri R.S.Singh, Chief Office Superintendent, DRM Office, M/o Railways, Northern Railway, Lucknow attended the hearing through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant's representative submitted that vide the RTI application dated 24.02.2018, the appellant sought information on six points, however, no information has been provided to her till date. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information sought for.
5. The respondent submitted that the appellant, vide her RTI application in question, has sought answers to questions pertaining to her pension records. He further submitted that the appellant is seeking redressal of her grievances. Although, the RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances, nonetheless, the respondent has provided a point wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 28.01.2020, and submitted the requisite documents pertaining to her pension records with the Accounts department for further action. In response to a query, the respondent submitted that the RTI application and first appeal were Page 2 of 5 never received in the office of the respondent, and it was only with the notice of today's hearing that a copy of the said RTI application and first appeal were received by the respondent.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and upon perusal of records, observes that the appellant, vide the RTI application in question, is not only seeking redressal of her grievances, but is also seeking answers to her questions, which does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission refers to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decision dated 03.04.2008) wherein it was held as follows:
"The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
7. The Commission also accepts the stand of the respondent that the RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances and that there are other appropriate fora for resolving such matters.
8. In view of the above, the Commission observes that at the outset it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or Page 3 of 5 provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for non-compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act.
9. Nonetheless, the respondent has provided a point wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 28.012020. However, there has been a considerable delay in providing the same. Moreover, the respondent has not been able to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the delay. Non-receipt of a duly sent RTI application merely indicates poor record keeping on the part of the respondent. The Commission, therefore, issues a warning to the appellant to improve their record keeping so that such lapses do not recur in future, and timely replies are provided to the applicants.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु मारगुप्ता) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयुक्त) दिनांक / Date:-10-02-2020 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमाग), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, M/O. Railways, ASC & PIO/RPF, O/o. The Sr. Divnl. Security Commissioner (RPF), Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow, UP-226001.Page 4 of 5
2. Smt. Devmati Page 5 of 5