Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Puneetranjan vs Defence Research And Development ... on 2 May, 2019

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


File No : CIC/DRADO/A/2017/144714/SD

Puneet Ranjan                                            ....अपीलकता/Appellant
                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम
CPIO,
Defence Research & Development Organisation,
Defence Institute of High Altitude Research,
Leh - 901205, C/o 56 APO                             ... ितवादीगण /Respondent

RTI application filed on          :    12/10/2016
CPIO replied on                   :    28/02/2017
First appeal filed on             :    28/03/2017
First Appellate Authority order   :    07/04/2017
Second Appeal dated               :    15/06/2017
Date of Hearing                   :    02/05/2019
Date of Decision                  :    02/05/2019

Information sought

:

The Appellant sought copy of rules & regulations governing the payment of Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) to Veterinary Doctor employed as STA B in DRDO (DIHAR).

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

The CPIO has not provided the desired information by taking the shelter of Section 24 of RTI Act even as the information sought pertains to violation of his human rights on account of non-payment of Non Practicing Allowance.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Tshering Topden, Sc. 'E' & CPIO, Defence Institute of High Altitude Research, Leh present through VC, Dr. Shweta Saxena, Sc.'E' & Ex- CPIO, DRDO, Defence Institute of High Altitude Research, Leh and Deepak Mishra, Sc. 'F' & Head RTI Cell, DRDO HQ, New Delhi present in person.

Decision DRDO has been placed in Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act. In view of this, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the DRDO except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged.

Adverting to the grounds of Second Appeal claiming human rights violation vis- a-vis Appellant's argument that it amounts to violation of his fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, we look at a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of The Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi vs. Central Information Commission And Anr. dated 02.02.2018, wherein it has been held as under:

"8. The contention advanced on behalf of respondent no.2 is unmerited.

The information sought for by respondent no.2 pertains to a service matter and the same cannot by any stretch be termed as "violation of human rights".

9. The expression "Human Rights'' denotes certain inalienable rights which every individual has by virtue of being a member of the Human Family. In December, 1948, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In December, 1965 the UN General Assembly adopted two covenants for observance of Human Rights: (i) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and (ii) Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. India is a party to the said covenants.

10. India has also enacted The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to provide for better protection of human rights and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The expression „Human Rights‟ is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act to mean "the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India".

File No : CIC/DRADO/A/2017/144714/SD

11. The expression „Human Rights Violation‟ as used in proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act cannot be read to extend all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights. Plainly, the said expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters. The grievances that the petitioner has in respect of the disciplinary proceedings in question do not fall under the ambit of human rights violations. [Emphasis Supplied]

12. In Director General and Anr vs Harender: WP(C) 5959 of 2013 decided on 16.09.2013, a co-ordinate bench of this Court had held that 'No violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc.' '' [Emphasis Supplied] The aforesaid adequately proves that Appellant's instant case cannot be deemed as a matter of violation of his fundamental rights/human rights.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                                                   Divya Prakash Sinha ( द    काश िस हा )
                                                 Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )

          Authenticated true copy
          (अ भ मा णत स या पत           त)


          Haro Prasad Sen
          Dy. Registrar
          011-26106140 / [email protected]
          हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
           दनांक / Date


Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by User
Date: 2019.05.03 10:46:50 IST

                                                   3