Right of 77-yr-old to revision of pension through RTI

For a common man it is difficult to secure information locked in the files of any Government Office. Thanks to RTI Act, the locks are being opened. But mind blocks are so tight, for which the keys are not available in the enactments. Though one served as a senior officer, once he retires, he is at the mercy of young officers who refuse to share any information with him even that information was about him or his pension.

A senior citizen being a retired officer of a government department needs to know about his pension, its possibility of revision. If he is entitled to revision but that was delayed or denied, would also amount to violation of his right to property (salary in the form of pension in this case), or right to live because he cannot depend on others when his own service does not help him to get his salary as per law and government policy. This is the story of a 77-year-old man who could not even present in the hearings to seek information about non-revision of his pension. Whereas half a dozen officers were present to explain how the information was given (in fact not given) through labyrinth of files.

The Appellant filed an RTI application on April 9, 2012 seeking information regard to fixation of his pension consequent upon the decision on November 1, 2011 of the Principal Bench of the Hon’ble CAT which directed the Government to re­fix the pension of all pre­2006 retirees from January 1, 2006. The Central Pension Accounting Office transferred the RTI Application to the Principal Accounts Office. The PIO replied on May 5, 2012 furnishing information regarding a few points of RTI Application. With regard to rest of the queries, he advised the Appellant to seek the information from the PIO concerned by applying separately to each PIO as it pertains to more than one public authority. The poor appellant has to approach the Appellate Authority in first appeal, who disposed it of agreeing with what all stated by PIO. Applicant was thus pushed to approach Central information Commission in second appeal from the record it was clear that the applicant has approached three different Public Authorities - (i) Pension Branch, Directorate of Education, GNCTD (ii) Central Pension Accounting Office, Dept. of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, GoI and (iii) Controller of Accounts, PAO, GNCTD.

In his second appeal, the Appellant has stated that the Pension Branch has forwarded the case of revision of pension to PAO- IX who provided him three pages of calculation sheet and the Controller of Accounts had provided information only against points 1 and 2 of his original request for information.

When queried by the Commission as to why the RTI application was not transferred to the PIOs concerned with whom the information might be available, it was submitted that according to an Office Memorandum, he could not transfer. But such an Office Memorandum was not applicable to this appeal.

A person makes an application to a public authority for information, a part of which is available with that public authority and the rest of the information is scattered with more than one other public authorities. In such a case, the PlO of the public authority receiving the application should give information relating to it and advise the applicant to make separate applications to the public authorities concerned for obtaining information from them. If no part of the information sought, is available with it but is scattered with more than one other public authorities, the PlO should inform the applicant that information is not available with the public authority and that the applicant should make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them. It may be noted that the Act requires the supply of such information only which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority.

It is beyond the scope of the Act for a public authority to create information. Collection of information, parts of which are available with different public authorities, would amount to creation of information which a public authority under the Act is not required to do.

At the same time, since the information is not related to anyone particular public authority, it is not the case where application should be transferred under sub­section (3) of Section 6 of the Act.

It is pertinent to note that sub­section (3) refers to 'another public authority' and not 'other public authorities'. Use of singular form in the Act in this regard is important to note. Unfortunately, the reply May 10, 2012 of the PIO does not reflect to which PIO the Appellant who is a senior citizen and a former Addl. Director of Education (School) has to apply. Finally the CIC had to say: The appellant is a senior citizen of 77 years age and not in a position to attend the hearing also. He couldnot be present in first appeal hearing also. As a former employee/officer of Public Authority, he has a right as per the contract of appointment to have his pension revised and paid immediately. He has a right under RTI Act also to know from when revision would be effective. It is his ‘HumanRight’ and also right as senior citizen not to be harassed. It is inhuman and violation of all his rights to make him wait for simple information since 9.4.2012 (almost two years).

It is highly unbecoming on the part of Respondent Public Authority to keep on circulating the file among several officers without furnishing any information. It is nothing but a clear case of harassing a senior citizen by making him run from pillar to post all for just one thing whether his pension has been refixed according to the order of CAT. The Commission directs the PIO, Principal Accounts Office, GNCTD (Greater National Capital Territory Delhi) to coordinate with concerned Public Authorities with whom the information sought will be available and collect the information and supply the same to the Appellant within thirty days of receipt of this order. The Commission asked the concerned PIO to show cause why penalty cannot be imposed against him. The young officers, is seems, forget that they also retire some day, and pension will be in the hands of officers. The RTI thus empowers a citizen to seek information, which is not less ascertaining the right which ultimately should lead to seeking justice.