Respondent: Leave accounts of employees recruited in the Secretariat from State Departments are not carried forward; Rajya Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules. 1957 are in public domain - CIC: Reply is appropriate and is upheld

Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

“Please provide the following information under RTI Act, 2005:-

1. Provide the details of the employees who joined the Rajya Sabha Secretariat after tendering technical resignation and maintaining lien in his/her parent department between the years 2005 to 2023(till date).

2. Provide the details of the employees mentioned at Sl. No.1 above whose EL and HPL of their parent Department are either credited or not credited in the Secretariat.

3. Kindly inform whether DoPT rules/orders are followed in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat regarding appointment of the employees who are recruited in the Secretariat from Central/State/Autonomous Department after tendering technical resignation and maintaining lien in their parent Department.

4. Kindly inform whether any comment/advice/clarification was obtained by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat from DoPT or any other Department of Govt. of India in the leave credit representation of Smt. Kusum Lata, Senior Secretariat Assistant (self). If yes, kindly provide copy of the same.

5. Provide the relevant pages of Noting and Correspondence related to File No. RS/3596/Estt.(G).

6. Kindly inform whether Estt. (General) Section, Rajya Sabha Secretariat is examining the leave credit benefits provided to other employees of the Secretariat mentioned at Sl. No. 1. If so, give details thereof.”

The Director & CAPIO, Parliament of India vide letter dated 17.11.2023 replied as under:-

1. The information is not maintained in the format as desired by the applicant and taking out information from personal tiles of each employees will disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, therefore information is denied under section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of RTI act 2005.

2. The information is not maintained in the format as desired by the applicant and taking out information from personal files of each employees will disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, therefore information is denied under section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of RTI act 2005.

3. The employees of this Secretariat are governed by rules. framed/adopted in toto or mutandis mutandis by the Secretariat The Subject matter of appointment is governed by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules. 1957 and orders issued thereunder from time to time. Besides the said orders, this Secretariat also follows the relevant instructions of DoP&T on the matter as adopted from time to time

4. No such clarification was obtained in instant case.

5. The query is vague and not specific as it is not clear as to which portion of noting is sought. However, as far as information sought in Para 4 is concerned, it is reiterated that no such clarification was obtained in instant case from DoPT or any other Deptt and therefore question of providing relevant noting does not arise.

6. Not covered under definition of information' under section 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. 2005 as applicant is asking question instead of information.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2023. The FAA vide order dated 02.01.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 07.04.2025 has been received from the CPIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat reiterating the aforementioned facts and stating that information available on record has been duly provided to the Appellant.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Present

Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar – CPIO and Shri Vivek Chandra - PIO were present during hearing.

During the course of hearing the Appellant contended that she had tendered technical resignation from her job in the Delhi State Government and joined the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. Her Earned Leave and HPL accrued in her parent Department had not been credited in the Secretariat. The Respondent answered that leave accounts of employees recruited in the Secretariat from State Departments, are not carried forward. The Appellant was informed accordingly and in fact such information is already available in public domain in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules. 1957.

Decision:

Upon hearing the averments of the parties and upon perusal of records of the case, it is noted that the Respondent’s reply is legally appropriate and hence it is upheld. In the given circumstances, the reply sent by the Respondent is legally appropriate and is in consonance of the provisions of the RTI Act, no further adjudication is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is thus disposed off.

Heeralal Samariya

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Ms. Kusum Lata v. Parliament of India, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, CIC/PAROI/A/2024/608172; Date of Decision : 25.04.2025