Information relating to fixation of revised pension was denied claiming that the PIO is not supposed to create information or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions - CIC: why the 1982 SC judgment is not applicable is outside the purview of RTI
Vide RTI dt 20.12.12, appellant had sought information relating to fixation of revised pension.
2. CPIO vide letter dt 29.1.13, informed appellant that CPIO is not supposed to create information or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
3. An appeal was filed on 9.2.13.
4. AA vide order dt 28.2.13, upheld the decision of the CPIO and disposed of the appeal.
5. Written submission dt 18.6.14 is received from the CPIO and taken on record.
6. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Appellant submitted that in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court, dt 17.7.1982, his pension should have been fixed on the basis of notional wages. CPIO submitted that the revision of pension of past pensioners is required to be done in accordance with OM dt 1.9.2008, which is based on para 5.1.47 of the report of Sixth CPC. There is no provision, either in the Pay Commission recommendations or in the OM dt 1.9.2008 for notional fixation of pay/wages for revision of pension of past pensioners. A copy of OM dt 1.9.2008 has been provided to the appellant. On the issue of why notional wages have not been provided, is not within the purview of ‘information’ as defined u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act.
7. The Commission finds that the appellant has a grievance relating to fixation of his pension and has questioned as to why the 1982 Supreme Court judgement is not applicable to him. This is a matter which is outside the purview of the Commission. We find that available information has already been provided by the CPIO and there is no infirmity in the response provided by the public authority. The appeal is disposed of.
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Pinaki Ranjan Khatua v. Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare in File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000892/RM