Officials given non functional pay scale in the DoE was sought - PIO offered inspection stating no specific officers or individuals or areas have been mentioned & it is not maintained in categorized manner - CIC: this is frivolous & vexatious application
1. Appellant through his RTI application sought for information as to how many officials have been given nonfunctional pay scale since o11212 till date in the directorate of education, GNCTD in compliance of service deptt. Orders dated 01.02.07 & 19.10.2007…etc. PIO requested the appellant to come for inspection and PIO(GOC) Vide his letter dated 16.05.2012 furnished para wise reply. Being unsatisfied with PIO reply, the appellant made First Appeal. First Appellate Authority upheld the information furnished by PIO. Unsatisfied with FAA order, appellant approach the Commission through this present second appeal.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
2. Appellant is a retired Assistant Director, Delhi Government, he claimed that he did not get nonfunctional pay while he was service, but some of his colleagues got. He made complaint to Head of Department and also to the Chief Secretary. The officer from the respondent authority stated that during his service he was not cleared from vigilance angle, so he was not given the nonfunctional pay. The appellant stated that in view of Supreme Court judgement in Janki Ram case he was entitled for nonfunctional scale. Respondent officer also stated that the appellant is seeking information about nonfunctional scale for the entire Delhi Govt. office.
3. The officer submitted that it is difficult for them to give all the information sought by the appellant who did not indicate officers or individuals or areas, because it is not maintained in categorized manner. They are ready to provide some more names of officers who were paid NFS from their records. The appellant stated that Supdt., GOC vide letter dated 16.05.2015, 69 officials have been granted nonfunctional scale. Appellant also stated that when the information was available in 2012, why it was not available with them now. Respondent officer answered to this saying that after 2012 everybody is getting nonfunctional scale, hence such list was not separately maintained. Respondent officer submitted that appellant was earlier charge sheeted when he was working in Central Jail in 2003 2005, which could be the reason for not given nonfunctional scale.
4. The appellant’s son was behaving violently and interfering frequently with others and the Commission. He alleged that officers deliberately telling falsehood and denying the information though they have it.
5. From the submissions, it appears that the appellant did not get nonfunctional scale because of vigilance inquiry against him. The department officers did not show the details of charges and consequences against the appellant. There is no public interest behind the RTI and appeal. The information furnished by 13 officers was sufficient to establish the claim the appellant was trying to make. His requirement of information is vague and general. With the unreasonable attitude of appellant it assumed level of harassment also. The Commission holds this as frivolous and vexatious application for selfish purposes of appellant. For this reason, and also because substantive information is furnished the Commission closes this appeal with recording an observation that appellant and his son behaved in arrogant and unreasonable manner castigating the officers and the Commission.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: G. S. Dhodi & Swarandeep Singh v. Dy. Director of Education(HQ) in Case No. CIC/SA/A/2014/001733