Online RTI Request and Replies of Certain CPIOs

 Request for Information and Replies of CPIOs of JCDA (AF) and PCDA (O)

1.  Tri Services Pay Staff (TRIPAS) wrote to the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) MoD that the revision of One Rank One Pension (OROP) as envisaged in MoD letter of 07.11.2015 was due after 5 years from 1.7.2014 i.e. in July 2019. TRIPAS also stated that MoD should protect the pension of those who retired on or after 1.7.2014, 31.12.2015 and 1.1.2016 vis-à-vis those entitled to OROP. The TRIPAS letter was forwarded by DESW/MoD to O/o CGDA requesting it to be prepared for the revision of OROP was well as to protect the pension of those not affected by OROP.

2.        O/o CGDA informed DESW/MoD that by their calculation of small sample of OROP retirees and non-OROP retirees of the two ranks with similar qualifying service, the apprehensions of TRIPAS were correct. However, while exact amounts of Basic Pensions etc of OROP recipients were mentioned, only number of affected personnel and percentages but not their Basic Pension was mentioned of those who retired subsequent to 1.7.2014.    

3.     Due, (as presumed by this author) to possibility of varying interpretations, Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) issued a 225 page Circular No. 555 dated 4.2.2016 (http://cgda.nic.in/audit/orop/Circular-555%20dated%2004.02.2016.pdf). Para 6 of MoD letter No. GoI, MoD letter No12 (1)/2014/D(Pen/Policy)-Part-II dated 3rd Feb,2016) on One Rank One Pension, “The appended tables indicate revised rates of Retiring/Service/Special/Disability/Invalid/Liberalized Disability / War Injury Pension including Disability/War Injury Element and Ordinary/ Special/ Liberalized Family Pension of Commissioned Officers, Honorary Commissioned Officers, JCOs/ORs and Non-Combatants (Enrolled) of Army, Navy, Air Force, Defence Security Corps & Territorial Army retired/ discharged/ invalided out from service/ died in service or after retirement. The existing pension of all pre-1.7.2014 pensioners/ family pensioners shall be enhanced with reference to the applicable table for the rank (and group in case of JCO/ORs) in which pensioned with the term of engagement for each rank as applicable from time to time.”  The Circular was addressed, amongst others to PCDA (WC), Chandigarh, CDA (PD), Meerut, and CDA Chennai.

4.      Therefore, as it is well known that Army, Navy and Air Force follow different time frames for promotion from rank of Lt Col & equivalent to higher ranks, there was a possibility of different interpretations as to the Basic Pay vis-à-vis the same years of qualifying service (QS). Therefore, O/o CGDA may have provided guideline tables  which may have been utilised by O/o CGDA in arriving at conclusions indicated in the O/o CGDA letter to MoD/DESW. 

5.        As stated in the CGDA website (cgda.nic.in), in Note to Para 51 (a) of the Defence Accounts Code 2014, “In Defence Services Pay & Allowances of Service officers, PBORs and Civilians are accounted for under separate Sub-Heads under various programmes of activities.” Further, it is also stated that “Compliance audit covers expenditure, receipts, assets and liabilities of Government for compliance with the rules and regulations, orders and instructions issued by Competent Authority..”   

 6.        Therefore, to be informed in detail as how is it possible that OROP entitled Officer retirees of the rank of Lt Col with 24 years qualifying service and Brigadier with 28 years qualifying service are earning higher amount as pension compared to those who retired on or after 1.7.2014, 31.12.2015 and 1.1.2016, this applicant/appellant filed an online RTI on 13.7.2019 requesting O/o CGDA to furnish certain information.

7.        The wordings of the RTI request dated 13.7.2019 were simple as shown below for ready reference:

            Sir,

Please provide, as per records available (with) O/o CGDA the actual amount of Basic Pay granted as on date of filing this application i.e. 01.07.2019 (1st July 2019) for Officers of the Defence Forces in the format given in supporting document, separately for Army, Navy and Air Force officers.

2. Please provide online facility for payment of additional fees towards photocopying charges @ Rs 2 per page so to reduce delay in furnishing the information.

3. CPIO(s) may provide the information online if he/they so wish.

8.   In the supporting document attached to CGDFA/R/2019/51055, the wordings were as follows:

 Sir,

Please provide, as per records available (with)  O/o CGDA the actual amount of Basic Pay granted as on date of filing this application i.e. 01.07.2019 (1st July 2019) for Officers of the Defence Forces in the format given in supporting document, separately for Army, Navy and Air Force officers in ranks of:

(a) Army: Lt Col (Select) and (TS), Col (Select) and (TS), Brig 

and Maj Gen

(b) Navy: Commander (Select) and (TS); Captain (Select ) and (TS), Commodore and Rear Admiral

(c) Air Force: Wing Commander (Select) and (TS), Group Captain (Select) and (TS), Air Commodore and Air Vice Marshal

Years of qualifying Service	Lt Col/Cdr/ Wg Cdr		Col/Capt (IN)/ Gp Capt		Brig/CMDE/ Air Cmde	Maj Gen/ RADM/AVM
-	Select	TS	Select	TS	Select	Select
13…..
…..36

If necessary, CPIO, O/o CGDA may consider transferring this request to CPIO of PCDA (O), PCDA (N)/Naval Pay Office and CPIO, CDA (AF) or CPIO, AFCAO under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005.     

Please Note: Years of qualifying service were 13 to 36 for each rank have not been shown above though they exist in the supporting document.

9.        CPIO, O/o CGDA transferred the application online to other CPIOs on 23.7.2019 i.e. after a delay of 10 days in contravention of Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005.

10.        CPIO, O/o Jt CDA (AF) furnished a reply reference No. DCA/PEN-I/RTI/Vol III dated 31.7.2019 which is misleading and belligerent. The contents of the reply are reproduced below for ready reference: -

“The information desired vide your above mentioned RTI application does not fall under ambit of information as stipulated in Para 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005. The Act does not require the Public Information Officer to deduce some conclusions from the ‘material’ and supply the ‘conclusion’ so deduced by the applicant”.

It is further advised that if there is any specific query regarding your case, the same may please be forwarded to this office” (emphasis supplied)

11.       Comment:

(i)         As may be seen from the wordings of the application, the request was for information. Further, it was precise and simply worded i.e. specific & easily comprehensible:  

“Please provide, as per records available (with) O/o CGDA the actual amount of Basic Pay granted as on date of date of filing of this application i.e. 01.07.2019 for Officers of the Defence Forces in the format given in supporting document, separately for Army, Navy and Air Force Officers.”    

(ii)        Therefore, from the foregoing it is evident that

(aa)      The application did not require CPIO to deduce

anything.

(ab)      The application did not provide any material to

the CPIO to interpret, or  

(ac)      The application did not request the CPIO to arrive

at any conclusion(s).

(iii)       The CPIO has presumed all the above and has misled himself and this applicant by neither stating up front that the information is being denied nor providing information in a blatant violation of Section 7 (1), and Section 7 (8) of the RTI Act, 2005.

(iv)       Due the CPIO’s tone & tenor and allegations, this applicant/appellant was aggrieved and filed a First Appeal No.  on 1.8.2019.

 

12.      CPIO, O/o PCDA (O) furnished a reply reference No. RTI/Tech/0479/Vo.IV dated 09.8.2019. The CPIO, O/o PCDA (O), in addition to repeating some words and phrases from the reply of CPIO, Jt CGDA (AF) [such as “deduce”, “from material provided”, and “arrive at conclusions”] which have been rebutted in the previous paragraph, also has stated that the CPIO states that “PIO is required to supply material in the form held by the Public Authority.” However, CPIO has not provided any information except to invoke certain Sections of the RTI Act, 2005. 

13.      Comment: If information is not available in the form/format requested for by this applicant, CPIO should have provided the information in the form that it is available with the CPIO. In this connection attention is drawn, inter alia, to the judgment of the honourable High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6634 of 2011 and CM No. 13398 of 2011 in The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs Cmde Lokesh Batra & Others, inter alia,

…..12.  However, the above principle cannot be used to deny information that is available with a public authority but not in the form as it is sought in the present case, it is the petitioner’s stand that it does not maintain the information ‘in the manner sought for’ and thus has no obligation to provide the information to the respondent No. 1. This stand is clearly unsustainable” (emphasis supplied).

…….15. The obvious intention of the Parliament is to ensure that information is available to the public in the form that is convenient to them. In this view, the petitioner’s contention that it has no obligation to provide the information if it is not maintained in the form in which the respondent No. 1 seeks it cannot be accepted. In the event it is not feasible for the petitioner to undertake an exercise of reducing the data available in the manner as is sought for by respondent No.1. the petitioner could, nonetheless, provide such information as is readily available with the petitioner, which will enable respondent No. 1 to ascertain such information……”  (emphasis supplied).

14.        Further, the CPIO, O/o PCDA (O) has invoked Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act 2005 stating, inter alia, “Moreover, it is stated that the information sought for under the said RTI application would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. As such information sought for is not covered under the ambit of RTI Act 2005 in terms of Section 7 (9) of RTI Act, 2005.”

15.       Comment:    

(i)         In File Nos. CIC/SA/A/2014/000024, CIC/SA/A/2014/000251 and CIC/SA/C/000018, in Shri R K Jain vs Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice, Govt of India, the honourable CIC has held as follows: -

11.       Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Treesa Irish vs The Central Public Information Officer in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6332 of 2006, with regard to Sec 7 (9) of RTI Act had observed as follows: - “……That Section does not even confer any discretion on a public authority to withhold information, let alone any exemption from disclosure. It only gives discretion to the public authority to provide the information in the form other than the form in which the information is sought for, if the form in which it is sought for would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. In fact there is no provision in the Act to deny information on the ground that the supply of information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority….” (emphasis in the above CIC order).   

(ii)        Decision No. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/112469 dated 

25.2.2019

“Decision: Commission concurs with the contention of the Appellant that Prashant Rastogi, the then CPIO & Under Secretary has grossly erred in asking the Appellant to visit his office for inspection of records even as information sought was not voluminous. Even further, the then CPIO made unwarranted reference to the Supreme Court judgment in Aditya Bandopadhyay’s case to remark that collection of information sought by the Appellant will affect CPIO’s regular duties. A copy of this order is marked to Prashant Rastogi, the then CPIO & Under Secretary through the present CPIO for him to take note of the admonition of the Commission and he is warned against providing such evasive reply on RTI Applications in future.”

  

16.        As this applicant/appellant being aggrieved, a First Appeal was filed on 9.8.2019.

17.         The online application was also sent by CPIO, O/o CGDA to CPIO, PCDA (N) and finally has landed up with the LOIC, NPO on 31.7.2019. Reply is awaited.

18.        A Second Appeal will be filed depending on whether the FAAs (Smt Devika Raghuvanshi, IDAS, PCDA (AF) and/or Shri R K Arora, IDAS, PCDA in O/o PCDA (O)  render speaking orders to the CPIOs to provide information i.e. the Basic Pay for each rank at different Qualifying Service (QS).