Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5502
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
Akhtar Jamal – Appellant
Versus
Department of Personnel & Training – Respondent
CIC/DOP&T/A/2023/632297
The CPIO's response to an RTI application is deemed adequate when based on existing public guidelines, and absence of the appellant limits the Commission's intervention.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 6 and 19 - RTI application filed seeking information on pay fixation policies for ex-Combatant Clerks and military pensioners re-employed in civil posts - CPIO provided information based on existing guidelines available in public domain - Appellant dissatisfied with the response, alleging incompleteness - First Appeal upheld CPIO's reply - Second Appeal dismissed by the Commission due to absence of Appellant and adequate response from the Respondent. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Right to Information - The CPIO is required to provide information as per existing guidelines and policies available in public domain, and the absence of the Appellant during the hearing limits the scope for intervention by the Commission. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant sought information regarding pay fixation policies for ex-Combatant Clerks and military pensioners re-employed in civil posts. The CPIO responded with existing guidelines, which the Appellant contested as incomplete.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found the CPIO's response appropriate and upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the Appellant's absence.
Issues: The main issues were whether the information provided was complete and whether the Commission should intervene in the absence of the Appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission ruled that the CPIO's response was adequate and that the absence of the Appellant limited the Commission's ability to intervene.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Latest policy on fixation of pay of ex-Combatant Clerks retired/released from service in the Armed Forces on re-employment as LDCs/Junior Clerks in Civil posts under Govt. of India.
(ii) Latest policy on fixation of pay of military pensioners re-employed in civil posts under Govt. of India.
(iii) Latest policy/guidelines on fixation of pay of ex-Combatant Clerks retired/released from service in the Armed Forces on re-employment as LDCs/Junior Clerks in Civil posts under Central Govt. Autonomous Bodies.
(iv) Latest policy on fixation of pay of military pensioners re-employed in civil posts under Central Govt. Autonomous Bodies.
(v) Is there any draft policy being formulated on any of the above requested provisions? If yes, contents/copies of the same may please be provided.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
“So far as pay fixation matter of re employed pensioners, including ex-servicemen in Central Government Civilian Services and Posts, is concerned, instructions issued vide F. No 3/1/1985-Estt. (Pay-II) dated 31.7.1986 and other related OMs including OM No. 3/3/2016-Ett (Pay-II) dated 1.05.2017 regulating pay fixation on re-employment in Central Civil Services, inter alia of ex-servicemen. These are already available in Public Domain and the same may be accessed from this Departments website https://dopt.gov.in: Archives: Orders 13 Establishment: Pay Rules.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.05.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 14.06.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.07.2023.
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Mahesh Kumar, US attended the hearing in Person.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the guidelines available on the DoPT website are provided to the Appellant and that policy regarding a single methodology for pay fixation is still under review.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the Respondent’s submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
