A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Appellant sought copies of noting w.r.t disciplinary proceedings pending against him - In a similar matter, the CIC order granting relief to the appellant has been stayed by Delhi High Court - CIC: no relief can be ordered in the matter at this stage

Percentage of attendance of student enrolled in PH.D. as per UGC - PIO: Information related to the personal information of other students, therefore the same was denied to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - CIC: Denial upheld

CIC: Complainant is arguing on his grievance regarding 3rd MACP and challenging the correctness of the information provided; PIO provided information in the spirit of RTI Act - CIC: Complainant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the Act

Alleging an unethical practices of taking money for passing PG clinical exam candidates, appellant sought to know the “number of times” a third party has been invited as an examiner - CIC: Being a third party service matter, information exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

A candidate sought to know the number of attempts made for the examinations conducted by UPSC - PIO: The number of attempts of the candidates is checked at the time of final stage of selection only; Information was not available in a complied form

PIO: Appellant sought the information through online portal and it was not possible for them to share the OMR sheet of NEET though online mode; Upon receipt of the second appeal, hard copies were provided - CIC: No scope of intervention in the matter

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

RTI applicant can seek compensation if a loss or detriment is suffered due to delay

Delhi HC orders removal of news articles and social media posts against a businessman on X

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Information about pension was denied u/s 24 by DRDL, a Schedule II organisation - CIC: No violation of human rights is involved in service matters such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc.

23 Sep, 2020

Information sought:

The Appellant sought to know date of sanction and opening date of post of Technician 'A' with reference to the notification for recruitment issued by DRDL, Hyderabad vide No. DRDL/1101 /RAD/STA `A' & Tech 'A' dated 24-06-2003, and sanction of post details if done by DRDO Hqrs with a copy of notification sanction details and also wanted to know if this post comes under new pension scheme or old pension scheme and criteria for placing the selected candidates in New or Old Pensions Scheme.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Represented by Uma Maheshwar Rao, Advocate through VC.

Respondent: M. Laxminarayana, Dir (Management Services) & CPIO, O/o Director, Management Services, Defence Research & Development Laboratory, Hyderabad present through VC.

CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 17.07.2018 stating that DRDO has been placed in Second Schedule of the RTI Act 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of information under Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI Act.

Advocate of the Appellant provided a detailed narrative of the context in which information has been sought and the crux of his argument was that the denial of information with regard to the pension of an employee is infringement of his fundamental right and amounts to human rights violation as understood under Section 24 (1) of RTI Act. In this regard, he referred to a report of National Human Rights Commission dated 10.12.2014 on the subject “Retiral Benefits as a Human Right – NHRC Initiatives with reference to International Conventions and Laws”, stating that its clearly mentioned in the said report that the subject matter of the pension or its denial relating to any employee is a gross violation of his/her Human Rights. He further highlighted upon certain orders and judgements of Central Administrative Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court adjudicating on the retrospective effect of New Pension Scheme and argued as to how Appellant should be getting the pension benefits under the old pension scheme. He reiterated that since Courts have adjudicated on the issue, the matter of pension under the old pension scheme of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 is a subject matter of human rights and its violation in any manner or denial to the employees of the Central Govt to exercise their option to opt whichever is beneficial to the individual employee is a gross violation of their human rights and therefore the public authority cannot claim exception under Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of RTI Act.

Furthermore, he relied upon certain judgments like in the matter of First Appellate Authority, Additional DGP, CID of Haryana Vs. CIC, CWP No. 12904/2009); Harinder Singh Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab & Ors., WP(C) No. 22229 of 2011 to argue that there is no blanket exemption under Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of RTI Act, that information which is not related to the intelligence and security of an organization can be provided by these exempt organizations.

Similar ratio laid down by Delhi High Court in the matter of Abid Hussain v State of Manipur, W.P (C) No. 880 of 2014 and Madras High Court in the matter of The Superintendent of Police vs. M. Kannappan & Anr., W.P (C) No.805 of 2012 was also relied upon. Lastly, the Advocate of Appellant extensively dwelled upon the aims and objectives of the RTI Act as enshrined in the Preamble to RTI Act to emphasize on the Appellant’s right to know.

Decision

DRDO has been placed in Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28.09.2005 by Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act. In view of this, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the DRDO except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged.

It may be noted that being dissatisfied with the opportunity provided to the advocate of the Appellant during hearing to present his case, he has sent a written submission post hearing wherein he has supplemented the arguments discussed above with some more citations of decisions passed by coordinate benches of the Commission.

Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that Appellant has not made any allegations of human rights violation and/or corruption in his RTI Application, First Appeal or Second Appeal, hence to that extent, there is no scope for intervention in the CPIO reply or FAA order. Nonetheless, adverting to the allegations of human rights violation urged by the advocate of the Appellant during hearing as well as in his written submissions dated 18.07.2020 & 20.07.2020 with respect to the pension scheme, Commission relies on a judgment dated 16.09.2013 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Directorate General of Security and Anr. vs. Harender [W.P.(C) 5959 of 2013] dated 16.09.2013 wherein it was held as under:

“4. …No violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc….” [Emphasis Supplied]

The aforesaid ratio has been reiterated in a relatively recent judgment dated 02.02.2018 of the same Court in the matter of The Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. [W.P.(C) 11092/2017] wherein it was held as under:

“8. The contention advanced on behalf of respondent no. 2 is unmerited. The information sought for by respondent no. 2 pertains to a service matter and the same cannot by any stretch be termed as "violation of human rights".

9. The expression “Human Rights’’ denotes certain inalienable rights which every individual has by virtue of being a member of the Human Family. In December, 1948, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In December, 1965 the UN General Assembly adopted two covenants for observance of Human Rights:

(i) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and

(ii) Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. India is a party to the said covenants.

10. India has also enacted The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to provide for better protection of human rights and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The expression “Human Rights” is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act to mean "the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India".

11. The expression “Human Rights Violation” as used in proviso to Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the Act cannot be read to extend all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights. Plainly, the said expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters. The grievances that the petitioner has in respect of the disciplinary proceedings in question do not fall under the ambit of human rights violations. [Emphasis Supplied]

12. In Director General and Anr vs Harender: WP(C) 5959 of 2013 decided on 16.09.2013, a co-ordinate bench of this Court had held that ‘No violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc.’ ’’ [Emphasis Supplied]

Similarly, the reliance placed by the Appellant on judgments of certain High Courts to argue that information which is not related to intelligence or security functions of the exempted organizations can be provided under the RTI Act, effectively seeks to widen the scope of interpretation of Section 24 of RTI Act. In this context, Commission is guided by the judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 83/2014] dated 03.02.2014, which held as under:

“4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption....” [Emphasis Supplied]

The said judgment was later upheld by a division bench of the Court in LPA 229/2014 on 11.03.2014.

A conjoint reading of the ratios discussed above answers all the contentions of the Appellant through his advocate in the negative and leaves no further scope of intervention of the Commission in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Divya Prakash Sinha

Information Commissioner

Citation: G Laxminarayana v. Defence Research & Development Laboratory in File No : CIC/DRADO/A/2018/162164, Date of Decision: 20/07/2020

Information about pension was denied u/s 24 by DRDL, a Schedule II organisation - CIC: No violation of human rights is involved in service matters such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc.

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.