RTI Act Cannot Be Used for Service Grievance Redressal: Central Information Commission Clarifies Scope

In a recent set of appeals, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has strictly delineated the boundaries of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, affirming that the legislation is intended for securing access to existing records rather than acting as a mechanism for the redressal of private service-related grievances.

Case Background

The appellant, N.S. Wankhede, filed multiple RTI applications seeking specific documentation regarding his past ad-hoc promotions, transfer memos, and relieving charge reports from the Department of Posts. The disputes arose after several requested documents were marked as "not available" or were claimed to have been weeded out of official records, leading the appellant to allege that the Department was providing incomplete, evasive, or misleading information.

The appellant further attempted to initiate "review petitions" against the orders of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)—a process not recognized under the RTI framework—as he believed the absence of certain records in his Service Book had unfairly impacted his retirement benefits.

Arguments Presented

The Appellant’s Stance: Mr. Wankhede contended that he was suffering from a lack of transparency, arguing that the Department of Posts failed to furnish essential documents confirming his service history. He maintained that the inclusion of an incorrect "reversion" entry in his pay fixation chart deprived him of continuous service benefits and that the respondents were improperly handling his grievances.

The Department’s Stance: The CPIOs representing the Department of Posts (Nashik, Nagpur, and Chh. Sambhajinagar) argued that they had conducted thorough searches of their archives. They clarified that some records, particularly those dating back over a decade, were no longer traceable or had been weeded out according to the standard Record Retention Policy. They emphasized that their duty under the RTI Act is limited to providing information that is currently available and in their custody, not creating fresh documents or providing interpretative clarifications regarding administrative actions.

Legal Analysis

The Commission evaluated the scope of "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam stressed that the Act does not empower a Public Information Officer (PIO) to create or generate documents that do not exist. Furthermore, she noted that the appellant was using the RTI platform to seek clarifications and redressals, which are grievances that should be pursued through established departmental or administrative tribunals, not through the mechanism of information disclosure.

The CIC also took issue with the conduct of the administrative offices, advising them against modifying or breaking down RTI queries into parts that change the essence of the original application, as this leads to confusion and potential non-compliance.

Key Observations

The Commission offered several pivotal clarifications regarding the role of the RTI Act:

• On the limits of the RTI Act: "The CPIO cannot be compelled to generate or create documents which do not exist and are not part of their records."
• On grievance redressal: "The Appellant is advised to abide by the filing procedures laid down under the provisions of the RTI Act and refrain from resorting to RTI Act through multiple applications indirectly seeking redressal of service-related grievances."
• On procedural accuracy: "CPIOs are advised not to amend the RTI queries while responding to the application(s) in future and address the points accurately as per the contents stated therein."

Court's Decision

The Commission disposed of the appeals with a two-fold direction. First, it ordered the CPIO at Chh. Sambhajinagar to provide a revised response regarding the missing records, specifically including the citation of the applicable record retention policy to prove that the weeding-out process was legitimate. Second, it firmly closed the door on the appellant’s request for "review petitions" within the RTI framework, directing all parties to adhere to the statutory procedures.

This ruling serves as a vital reminder to public servants and applicants alike: the transparency mandated by the RTI Act is a tool for accountability, not an alternative route to contest individual service disputes.