Central Information Commission
Bahadur Singh Rautela vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 29 January, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीयअपीलसंख्या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/MPERS/A/2023/126698/MHOME.
Shri. Bahadur Singh Rautela. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Home Affairs.
Date of Hearing : 27.01.2025
Date of Decision : 27.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.02.2023
PIO replied on : 24.02.2023
First Appeal filed on : 14.03.2023
First Appellate Order on : 28.03.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 10.07.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.02.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"(a) MHA Pers II Desk order No. OMA 43020/101/200 IRTI dt 6.9.2011.
(b) MHA (CRW) Dte CR No 12381/28/2018 df 6.4.2018.
(c) High Court B Delhi judgement of 28.3.2011 Received after 15 years on 22.3.2011 ride which salary of ASCH. Comet granted for the period of my working as DDO/ARCH. Comet with 18-1. countket interest
(d) PMO शिकायत निवारण RR Sec Adam Dte of HQ letter No 1-4-2019 PG ( 011-0056077 held by los Adrm now 10s (Pers).
(e) Treasury Rule No 77, 78, 79. I and GFR (xii) during which I have performed the dution of DDo which adity is only be performed by a Gargfted Atice. 9 Could not be reverted on a falll, fabricated and wrong Adverse remark of other officer in my Very Good Aer Calandestinely endorsed or on my ACR for the year 1990-91. Etc."
The CPIO, US, Directorate of Public Grievance vide letter dated 24.02.2023 replied as under:-
"2. This is to inform that the undersigned is not the custodian of the information sought in the RTI application. Your RTI application is, being transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to Shri Praveen Kumar Yadav, Deputy Secretary Page 1 (Admn.) & Nodal CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, Reem No:297- A, North Bleck, New Delhi for necessary action"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.03.2023. The FAA, Director, Directorate of Public Grievance vide order dated 28.03.2023 stated as under:-
"I have seen the records. The reply given by CPIO is just and appropriate. The first appeal should be filed with appropriate authority in Ministry of Home Affairs if the appellant is not satisfied. Further, as pointed out by CPIO, the subject matter of his complaint falls outside purview of this Directorate and, therefore, the appellant should take up the matter directly with the concerned authority. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 09.01.2025 has been received from the CPIO, Directorate Public Grievances and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
The appellant has filed the present appeal without clearly identifying any discrepancy in the information provided by the DPG. Upon reviewing the Second Appeal, it is apparent that the appellant has not challenged the reply of the DPG. Instead, the Second Appeal pertains to the appellant's grievance regarding the non- regularization of his promotion by the Ministry of Home Affairs for the past 35 years.
5. It is further stated that all grievances received in DPG are assessed based on parameters such as the purview of the Directorate, the complainant's bona fides. the gravity of the complaints, and the adequacy or delay in responses from Ministries or Departments. Depending on this assessment, cases are either taken up by the DPG or transferred to the relevant Ministry/Department. Cases taken up by the DPG are followed through to their logical conclusion. Transferred cases, on the other hand, are addressed by the concerned Ministries or Departments, which close the cases after uploading their action-taken reports. No further intervention is made by the DPG in such cases. In this instance, the grievance of the appellant was transferred by the concerned officer, as neither service-related issues nor matters pertaining to the Ministry of Home Affairs fall within the purview of the DPG. The appellant was informed accordingly. The mandate of the DPG is derived from the Government of India Resolution No. A-
11013/1/88-Ad.I, dated March 28, 1988, which is provided at Annex- IV
6. His RTI application and appeals are an attempt to coerce DPG to interfere in his case. It has already been clarified that DPG cannot interfere in his case. Even otherwise, the Central Information Commission in its various pronouncements has established that the RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of Page 2 grievances/disputes The orders in Case No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29 January 2013 and CIC/POWER/A/2017/105911 Dated 01.12.2017 are such examples. Since the appellant has not contested the reply provided by the DPG, it is respectfully requested that the undersigned be exempted from attending the hearing scheduled on 27.01.2025 before the CIC Written submission has been received from Ministry of Home Affairs, Police Division-II. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
3. उपरोक्त संदर्भ में अवगत करािा है कक श्री बहादरु शसंह रौतेला द्वारा प्रस्तुत 02 ऑिलाइिाइि आवेदि पंजीकरण सं० एमएचओएमई/आर/पी/23/00171 ददिांक 06.03.2023 एवं एमएचओएमई/आर/पी/23/00186 ददिांक 14.03.2023 इस मंत्रालय को पूवभ में प्राप्त हुए थे, जजसके अिुसार आवेदक द्वारा स्वयं की सेवा से समबजधित ववशर्धि बबधदओ ु ं पर, माििीय धयायालयों द्वारा ददए गए फैसले की अवमाििा इत्यादद के संदर्भ में है । तदोपराधत, सूचिा का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 की िारा 6 (3) के तहत इि दोिो आवेदिों को निदे िक (काशमभक एंव समधवय) एवं के.
लो. सू.अधिकारी के पत्र ददिांक 27.03.2023 अिुसार सीमा सुरक्षा बल के केधरीय लोक सूचिा अधिकारी को स्थािाधतररत ककया गया था। इसके अनतररक्त आवेदक द्वारा उपरोक्त ववषयॉक अिेकों बार ववशर्धि ववर्ागों/कायाभलयों के माध्यम से र्ी सूचिा प्राप्त करिे हे तु अिुरोि ककया गया था, उक्त सर्ी आवेदिों को इस मंत्रालय के पत्र ददिांक 18.10.2021, 22.10.2021, 27.10.2021, 30.11.2022, 05.12.2022 एवं 21.02.2023 अिुसार सीमा सुरक्षा बल को आवश्यक कारभवाई के शलए प्रेवषत ककए जा चुके हैं (पत्र संलग्ि)।
Written submission dated 23.01.2025 has been received from Directorate General Border Security Force. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
2. It is humbly submitted that complainant Sh Bahadur Singh Rautela (Retd. Dy. Comdt), at Vishwakarma Colony, E-
Block, E-153, Lal Kuan, Prahladpur, New Delhi-110044 forwarded a RTI request vide Registration No. BSECF/R/T/23/00086 dated 28.03.2023 along with his application dated 18.02.2023 through online mode regarding service matter i.e. delay in promotion from Inspr to AC and pay arrear, etc. under RTI Act-2005 (Annexure R-1).
3. In terms of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, BSF being a Security organization, is exempted from the provision of this Act except information pertaining to the allegation of corruption and human rights violations. Since the information requested by the complainant did not come under these clause, accordingly, suitable reply was given to the complainant vide this Office Letter No. 17/61/2022-Pers/BSF/22947 dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure R-2) mentioning that complainant had filed a WP No. 520/1996 before Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Court examined all the issues vide judgment dated 28.03.2011 and a speaking order was passed by FHQ (Pers Dte) O/No. 31/15/91-Pers/BSF/36772-76-dated 08.07.2011 in the Page 3 compliance of Hon'ble Court order. Moreover, latest information conveyed to the complainant vide FHQ (Pers Dte) L/No. 17/61/2022/Pers/BSF/1911 dated 19.01.2023 (Annexure R-3) mentioning therein that based on the speaking order PAD has already paid the arrears.
4. Brief of the facts
(a) Brief of the case is that Shri B S Rautela, Ex DC was promoted as Asstt Commandant on Adhoc basis w.e.f. 30.10.1989. On expiry of the period of adhoc appointment, the officer was reverted to the rank of Subedar w.e.f. 01.04.1991 alongwith other Adhoc Subedars. He was further considered by DSC held on 24/25 April 1991 for adhoc promotion and was graded as 'Unfit' due to adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1990-91. Adverse remarks subsequently expunged from the ACR of the officer and he was considered for appointment to the rank of Asstt Commandant on adhoc basis by a Review DSC held on 24.12.1991 w.r.t. DSC dated 24/25 April 1991. The Review DSC was submitted for approval of MHA but before approval of MHA, the officer was promoted to the rank of AC on regular basis w.e.f. 01.03.1992 alongwith other Subedars reverted with him to the rank of Subedar from the Adhoc appointment of AC. As such MHA did not approve the DSC due to the reason that there is no instruction to convene Review DPC for adhoc promotion and the applicant had already been promoted to the rank of AC on regular basis w e.f. 01.03.1992.
b) Based on the DSC held on 24/25 April 1991, the next junior of Shri B S Rautela was promoted as AC on adhoc basis w.e.f. 18.05.1991 and on regular basis w.e.f. 01.03.1992 in continuation to adhoc appointment. However, Shri B S Rautela was promoted to the rank of AC on regular basis w.e.f. 01.03.1992. Therefore, pay of the junior of the officer was fixed in the rank of AC w.e.f. 18.05.1991 whereas, pay of Shri B S Rautela was fixed w.e.f. 01.03.1992 which caused disadvantage to the applicant. His case was examined and on approval of Hon'ble HM, the applicant was granted promotion to the rank of AC on adhoc basis notionally w.e..f. 18.05.1991 with all consequential benefits including salary of the post of AC for the period of said adhoc promotion i.e. w.e.f. 18.05.1991 to 29.02.1991 vide HQ DG BSF Order No. 31/15/91-Pers/BSF/566 dated 21.10.1997.
(c) Shri B S Rautela, had filed a Writ Petition No. 520/1996 titled B S Rautela v/s UOI and others before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble Court examined all the issues and disposed of the writ petition deciding all the issues vide judgment dated 28.03.2011 (Annexure R-4).
(d) In compliance of the Court order dated 28.03.2011, a speaking order was passed by FHQ (Pers Dte) O/No. 31/15/91- Pers/BSF/36772-76 dated 08.07.2011 (Annexure R-5). Following arrears of pay and allowances were due to the applicant :-
if Page 4 I. Arrears of pay and allowances for the period from 18.5.1991 to 29.02.1992 were due to the applicant in compliance of this HQ order dated 21.10.1997.
II. Arrears of pay and allowances from 01.04.1991 to 19.05.1991 were due as allowed by BSF order dated 08.07.2011 issued in respectful compliance of Hon'ble Court order dated 28.03.2011. Above arrears of pay and allowances have been paid vide PAD BSF cheque No. 124806 dated 22.02.2011 for Rs. 2197/- as arrear for the period from 18.05.1991 to 29.02.1992 (Annexure R-6), and Rs. 7616/- on account of arrear of pay and allowances from 01.04.1991 το 31.05.1991 worked out and remitted to his Banker SBI CGO Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi A/C No. 10591466960 through CBS on 27.09.2011, as confirmed by PAD (a, vide-Signal No. A/1212 dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure R-7) as allowed by BSF order dated 08.07.2011 issued in compliance of Hon'ble Court order dated 28.03.2011. PAD BSF was and allowances.
further clarified that there is no provision under rules for paying interest on arrears of pay
5. Since information sought by the complainant vide his RTI request dated 28.03.2023 has already been suitably replied as such, the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner may like to dismiss the instant appeal, being infructuous.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Yadav, US(DPG), Mr. Kamlesh Rabidas, US(P- II), MHA, Mr. Karni Singh, DIG, BSF- participated in the hearing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought.
Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Yadav stated that no information is available in their records with respect queries raised in the instant RTI Application and accordingly the instant RTI Application was transferred to Ministry of Home Affairs.
Mr. Kamlesh Rabidas reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that since the queries raised by the Appellant relates to his service matter the instant RTI Application was transferred to BSF.
Mr. Karni Singh, DIG, BSF reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the in terms of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, BSF being a Security organization, is exempted from the provision of this Act except information pertaining to the allegation of corruption and human rights violations. He averred that since the information requested by the complainant did not come under these clause, accordingly, suitable reply was given to the complainant vide this Office Letter No. 17/61/2022- Pers/BSF/22947 dated 30.05.2023 mentioning that Appellant had filed a WP No. 520/1996 before Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Court Page 5 examined all the issues vide judgment dated 28.03.2011 and a speaking order was passed by FHQ (Pers Dte) O/No. 31/15/91-Pers/BSF/36772-76-dated 08.07.2011 in the compliance of Hon'ble Court order. Moreover, latest information conveyed to the complainant vide FHQ (Pers Dte) L/No. 17/61/2022/Pers/BSF/1911 dated 19.01.2023 mentioning therein that based on the speaking order PAD has already paid the arrears.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
Appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)