Reply from First Appellate Authority MoF, DoE, E.III-A dated 2/5/2013

REPLY TO FIRST APPEAL DATED 12^th APRIL 2013 RECEIVED ON 6^th MAY 2013

* * * * *

PART – I

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

FIRST APPEAL FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

I.D. No_________ Date: _________ [For office use]

To,

Shri Amar Nath Singh, Deputy Secretary & The First Appellate Authority,

Branch E.III-A, Dept of Expenditure,

Ministry of Finance, Govt of India,

Room No. 74-C, North Block,

New Delhi - 110011

Sir,

1.         As I am aggrieved by decision of Under Secretary & Central Public Information Officer, Branch E.III-A, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block,  New Delhi – 110 011 dated 26^th March 2013 and received by me via speed post on 1^st April 2013. I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.

2. Details of appellant

2.1 Full Name: Sharad Yeshwant Savur

2.2. Full Address: 141, Jal Vayu Towers, Beniganahalli, Indira Nagar (PO), Bangalore-560038

2.3 Phone/Cell No: +91 9449676278

2.4 Email ID: sysavur@gmail.com

3. Details of CPIO: -

3.1 Name/Designation:  Shri Manab Ray, Under Secretary & CPIO

3.2 Full Address: Branch E.III.A, Department of Expenditure,

Ministry of Finance, Govt of India, North Block, New Delhi - 110011

3.3 Name of Public Authority: Ministry of Finance

4. Details of RTI application to CPIO: -

4.1. Date of Application: 28^th February 2013

4.2. Mailed on: 27.02.2013

4.3. By registered post No. A RU1808776981 IN

4.4. Date of receipt by CPIO: through DS (RTI Cell of MoF) on 07.03. 2013.

5. Particulars of payment of filing fee: -

5.1 Paid Rs.10/- by IPO No. 16F 452257 Dated 18.02.2013 of INDIRA NAGAR Post office

6. Details of information sought: -

Vide Section 4 (2) (c) and (d) of the RTI Act 2005, I request photocopies

(a) Of the file notings, deliberations, discussions, and related information with dates, provided to the 4^th CPC based on which the Commission recommended as follows: - 

“ 28.13. We also recommend that in addition to pay in the above integrated scale, the following rank pays may be given to officers in the Army and their equivalents in the other services…..”

And  

“Chapter 30. We have recommended the method of fixation of pay in proposed scales for civilian employees, we recommend the same method may be adopted for fixation of pay of armed force personnel, also. Since rank pay is a separate element for officers upto the rank of Brigadier and equivalent, the same may be taken into account, while fixing pay in the integrated scale of pay recommended by us.”

(b) Of file notings, deliberations, discussions and related to information with dates that Ministry of Finance, Dept of Expenditure, Branch E.III.A provided to MoD as part of its concurrence culminating in promulgating the methodology para 6 (a) (ii) Special Army Instructions 1/S/1987 and similar instructions for the Navy and Air Force  

(c) Of the file notings, deliberations, discussions, illustrations and related information, with dates provided to the 5^th CPC based on which it made the recommendation in Part VII, Section II, Para 148.1 as follows: -

“The Fourth CPC while following a similar dispensation for civilian and Service Personnel had given specific illustrations of the manner in which pay for service personnel should be fixed especially in the context of the introduction of integrated pay scales for Service Officers…”

           

(c) Of the file notings, deliberations, discussions and related information, with dates provided to the 5^th CPC to enable it to arrive at the recommendation made in Part VII, Section II, Para 148.2 for deducting rank pay, specifically: -

“We have deliberated over the manner in which service pays should be fixed and in order to ensure equality of treatment suggest that the method of fixation of pay on revision recommended for civilian employees may also be adopted for service personnel. For Service Officers upto the rank of Brigadier who are to be brought on to regular scales of pay from the existing integrated scale, we suggest that for fixation of pay the existing rank pay may be taken into account but pay in revised scales be fixed after deducting the revised amount of rank pay.”

7. Particulars of Decision of CPIO: -

7.1 Letter reference No: F. No. 7/1/2013 – E.III (A)/ RTI

7.2. Date of CPIO’s Decision: 26^th March 2013

7.3 Date of receipt of decision by the appellant: 1^st April 2013

8. Brief facts of the case: -

Of the file notings, deliberations, discussions, and related information with dates, provided to the 4^th CPC based on which the Commission recommended as follows: - 

(a)        “ 28.13. We also recommend that in addition to pay in the above integrated scale, the following rank pays may be given to officers in the Army and their equivalents in the other services…..”

And  

“Chapter 30. We have recommended the method of fixation of pay in proposed scales for civilian employees, we recommend the same method may be adopted for fixation of pay of armed force personnel, also. Since rank pay is a separate element for officers upto the rank of Brigadier and equivalent, the same may be taken into account, while fixing pay in the integrated scale of pay recommended by us.”

(b) Of file notings, deliberations, discussions and related to information with dates that Ministry of Finance, Dept of Expenditure, Branch E.III.A provided to MoD as part of its concurrence culminating in promulgating the methodology para 6 (a) (ii) Special Army Instructions 1/S/1987 and similar instructions for the Navy and Air Force  

(c) Of the file notings, deliberations, discussions, illustrations and related information, with dates provided to the 5^th CPC based on which it made the recommendation in Part VII, Section II, Para 148.1 as follows: -

“The Fourth CPC while following a similar dispensation for civilian and Service Personnel had given specific illustrations of the manner in which pay for service personnel should be fixed especially in the context of the introduction of integrated pay scales for Service Officers…”

           

(d) Of the file notings, deliberations, discussions and related information, with dates provided to the 5^th CPC to enable it to arrive at the recommendation made in Part VII, Section II, Para 148.2 for deducting rank pay, specifically: -

“We have deliberated over the manner in which service pays should be fixed and in order to ensure equality of treatment suggest that the method of fixation of pay on revision recommended for civilian employees may also be adopted for service personnel. For Service Officers upto the rank of Brigadier who are to be brought on to regular scales of pay from the existing integrated scale, we suggest that for fixation of pay the existing rank pay may be taken into account but pay in revised scales be fixed after deducting the revised amount of rank pay.”

9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal: -

Under Secretary and CPIO of E.III- A branch of the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Govt of India vide impugned letter dated 26^th March 2013 (copy attached and marked Annexure ‘A’) states in: -

S No. 1 (Relevant to Para 7 (a) above). The Pay Commission is an independent body constituted by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure and this Department did not provide the Commission with the input mentioned in the RTI application

S No. 2 (Relevant to Para 7 (b) above). The Department of Expenditure follows single file system and comments/views/concurrence of this Department are recorded in the file of the administrative Department. However, the photocopies of the relevant Army, Navy and Air Force Instructions wherein this Department’s ID note and date was mentioned may please be provided so as to enable us to trace the relevant documents based on which the MoD had issued instructions in respect of Army/Navy/Air Forces.

S No. 3 (Refers to Para 7 (c) above). The Pay Commission is an independent body constituted by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure and this Department did not provide the Commission with the input mentioned in the RTI application

           

S No. 4 (Refers to Para 7 (d) above). The Pay Commission is an independent body constituted by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure and this Department did not provide the Commission with the input mentioned in the RTI application

The above statement of the US & CPIO, E.III.A branch is incorrect and not in consonance with facts as available from Govt documents i.e. reports of IV CPC and V CPC etc: -

S No. 1: - The 4^th Pay Commission Report states in Concluding Observations and Acknowledgments (Page 324)  as follows “……….. We are grateful to……..Secretaries of Ministries and Departments ….. for their suggestions.” This being a financial matter, it is impossible that MoF, Dept of Expenditure, E.IIIA or any appropriate Branch did not officer any suggestions.

The Fifth Central Pay Commission report states, inter alia, in Part I, Para 1.35. Memoranda of Ministries “All the Ministries/Departments of the Central Government were requested to send us memoranda on the subjects covered by our terms of reference. We also issued a detailed Proforma to all the Ministries/Departments ……………..”

Further ibid report states at Para 1.37 i) “Whenever factual information was called for, there should be no hesitation to furnish all necessary factual information. The reason for arriving at a particular decision taken by the Government or the circumstances in which a decision was taken might also be explained so as to help the Commission in understanding the policy of the Government.”  

S. No. 2: - (i) The CPIO is aware that Special Instructions for Army, Navy and Air Force No.1/S/1987 is a “RESTRICTED” document. An ordinary citizen of India cannot be in possession of a “RESTRICTED” document, make photocopies or send it unless one wants to risk prosecution. 

(ii) Therefore, the CPIO being a Govt officer, asking for a photocopy amounts to obfuscation, procrastination, even instigating a law abiding citizen to obtain illegally a copy of a RESTRICTED Ministry of Defence document with the legal consequences thereof.

(iii) CPIO could have asked for or utilised the resources and the library/archives of the MoF or asked CPIO MoD to obtain the same to enable him to provide the information requested.

(iv) CPIO could also have obtained the reply vide Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005.

(v) MoF has commented on the ibid SAI/SNI/SAFI in reference to notes on MoD File No. 34 (6) 2012 – D (Pay/Services) vide MoF/DoE ID No. 187654/E-IIIA/2012 dated 24.12.2012

(vi) Finally, in the reply provided vide MoF vide F. No. 7/1/2-13-E.III (A)/AA/12 dated 4^th April 2013 to RTI application dated 14.2.2013 Notes on MoF file No. 2458/JS (Per)/09 Vol III there is reference to the ibid SAI 1/S/1987.

S. Nos. 3 & 4: - The 5^th CPC provided a questionnaire to all Ministries. MoF, being the most Nodal Ministry, will have offered its suggestions/views pre- and post the Report. Therefore, the reply of the CPIO amounts to not intending to provide a correct and truthful reply.

                                   
10. Any other information in support of appeal:  Nil

11. Prayer/relief sought for:

US & CPIO (E.III.A) branch provide me with information as requested without any further delay or I may be informed that I could appeal to the CIC for necessary action.

12. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:

US & CPIO (E.III. A) has once again peremptorily dismissed my request for information. He had done so earlier vide F No. 7/1/2013-E.III.A/65 dated 6^th February against which I had sent a First Appeal dated 14^th February 2013. I received a reply supplying me information vide MoF F. No. 7/1/2-13-E.III (A)/AA/12 dated 4^th April dated 4^th April 2013.

13. Personal Presence at hearing: - No

14. Enclosures: -  Photocopies

14.1. Original RTI application with its enclosures: - Annexure ‘A’

            14.2. Postal proof of mailing: -                                   Page 2 of Annexure ‘A’

14.3. Acknowledgement of CPIO: -                             Annexure ‘B’

14.4. Decision letter of CPIO: -                                   Annexure ‘C’

15. Declaration:

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with any information commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.
Place: Bangalore                     Date:   12^th April 2013                         Signature of appellant
P.S. Format as per office memorandum dated 09-07-2007 issued by DoPT, Govt. of India.

PART-II: REPLY FROM MoF

No.7/1/2012 E-III (A)/RTI Appeal

Ministry of Finance

Department of Expenditure

(E-III (A) Branch)

North Block, New Delhi

Dated: 2^nd May, 2013

CASE No.                                                        AA/25/2013

NAME OF APPELLANT                                   SHRI SHARAD YESHWANT SAVUR

Sub: Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005

The appellant has filed an appeal, dated 12^th April, 2013 under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 against reply furnished by Shri Manoj Kumar, Under Secretary and CPIO vide his letter No. 7/1/2013-E-III (A)/RTI dated 26^th March 2013 in response to RTI application dated 28/02/2013. The appeal was received by the undersigned on 16/04/2013.

2. The undersigned has gone thorough the RTI application, dated 28/02/2013, which seeks photocopies of the file notings, deliberations, discussions and related information with dates provided by the Ministry of Finance to 4^th and 5^th CPC based on which the Pay Commission had made recommendations of rank pay and method of fixation of pay of armed forces personnel up to the rank of Brigadier and also photocopies of the file noting, deliberations, discussions and related information with dates provided by Ministry of Finance to MoD as concurrence to promulgation of methodology in para 6 (a) (ii) Special Army Instructions 1/S/87 and similar instructions for the Navy and Air Force.    

3. The Under Secretary and CPIO, Shri Manoj Kumar, in his reply dated 26^th March, 2013 had conveyed that this Department did not provide the Commission with the input mentioned in the RTI application. In reply to Point No. 2, the CPIO has requested the appellant to provide the photocopy of the relevant Army/Navy/Air Force Instructons so as to enable us to trace the relevant documents.

4. The appellant has not sought any personal hearing. Hence, the following order is passed. 

ORDER

5. I have gone through the appeal, dated 12/04/2013 preferred by the appellant and also the RTI application dated 28/02/2013 and the reply dt 26^th March, 2013 from the CPIO.

6. The reply of the CPIO dt 26^th March 2013 does not bring out whether the information sought by the appellant is available in the Branch or not. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to look into whether the information/documents sought by the appellant is available and if so, the information as available should be immediately provided.

The appeal is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/---------------------------

(Amar Nath Singh)

Deputy Secretary (E-III(A) and 1^st Appellate Authority

To

1. Shri Manoj Kumar, CPIO and US (E-III B) for appropriate action

2. Shri Y. S. Savur

       141, Jal Vayu Towers

       NGEF Layout

       Indira Nagar (PO)

       Bangalore-560038

Copy to: DS (RTI Cell), Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi alongwith a copy of the appeal dated 12/04/2013 by Shri Y S Savur