Acts
 Rules
 Case Laws
 Forms

 HR Tools
 Career Tips
 Employer Tips

2006-HRIOL-63-CIC

BEFORE THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

F.No . CIC/AT/A/2006/00062

Dated: May 1, 2006

Appellant is of the view that department is giving someone undue benefits in career progression - RTI Act is not appropriate law for redressal of such grievances - no information regarding department's actions could be furnished under RTI act

DECISION

Shri P.L. Sanyal, UDC in the Department of Agricultural & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture has come up in appeal to the Commission against the order dated 2nd March, 06 of the appellate authority, Shri Naved Masood of the same Department. The parties were called on 1st May, 06 at 11.00 A.M.. The appellant was present in person and the appellate authority was represented by Shri Manoj Pandey, Director & CPIO and Shri K.D. Upreti, DS (Pers.) and Shri U.C. Pandey, S.O.

2. Shri Sanyal has sought information on the appointment of Shri Harpal Singh as adhoc Assistant in the Department of Agricultural and Cooperation and the merger of the post of Orderly Officer earlier held by Shri Harpal Singh with the post of Assistant and continuance of Shri Harpal Singh in the same merged and upgraded post. The appellate authority has summarized queries of the appellant into seven categories as follows : -

1. How come DOPT has agreed to appointment of Shri Harpal Singh in violation of Rules?

2. With the post of Orderly Officer having been merged with the post of Assistant, a regular and not adhoc Assistant should have been appointed to that post.

3. Whether the Department has a prerogative to violate Rules?

4. Shri Harpal Singh having spent more than 4 years as Orderly Officer, whether DOPT has been moved for treating him on "deemed deputation."

5. Department of agriculture is bent upon continuing Shri Harpal Singh as Assistant cum Orderly Officer while DOPT keeps approving such proposal, are these Departments interested in benefiting a particular employee?

6. Whether any person can be promoted despite ban on promotions?

7. Where a Department bypasses its instruction should the DOPT concur with a wrong?

(It may be reiterated that the above is only a substance of the queries as understood by the undersigned and not a reproduction of the original queries) .

3. The appellate authority concluded that the replies furnished to the appellant by the PIO on 27th January, 06 and on 30th January, 06 fully corresponded to the information sought by the appellant. The appellate authority noted that the question 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 raised by the appellant were more in the nature of allegations rather than seeking information. For the remaining questions, replies have already been furnished to him. In the appellate authority's own words he " ............ is of the view that the reply dated 27th January seeks to address the queries and that while the plea of 'opinion' is not well founded, the decisions in question being matters of 'discretion', no further information appears to exist on the subject." He also advised the appellant that if he believed that the information furnished to him was either incomplete or misleading he could take recourse to the Section 18(1) (e) of the RTI Act.

4. Quite clearly it is not the appellant's plea that the Department has furnished him incomplete or misleading information. He has come up in appeal to the Commission because the Department found itself unable to satisfy his queries in regard to a large part of the information sought by him on account of the nature of those queries. A plain reading of the request made by the appellant makes it clear that he is more interested in contesting the actions of the department in giving Shri Harpal Singh certain alleged undue benefits in matters of career progression . The RTI Act may not be the appropriate law for redressal of such grievances . The first appellate authority has, therefore, rightly concluded that the appellant could contest the justification for the action in the matter of Harpal Singh provided by the Department, at an appropriat e legal forum. The appellate authority has also directed the PIO to assist the appellant in obtaining from the PIO of the DOPT the information in regard to his query No. 6 viz. whether any person can be promoted despite ban on promotions.

5. The decision of the appellate authority is unambiguous and clear. With supporting reasons, the appellate authority has rightly come to the conclusion that information furnished to the appellant was complete and accurate in respect of his queries No. 2 and 4. In respect of other queries, no information could be furnished as they seek to question the department's actions. There are other forums to seek redressal of such service related grievances . In regard to query No. 6, PIO of the Department of Personnel may furnish the requisite information to the appellant.