- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
A.S. Sundaram v. Central Public Infor...
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.11.2019 requesting five categories of information relating to his General Provident Fund (GPF) final settlement following retirement on 30.06.2019. The requests sought (inter alia) dates of settlement and authority, details of interest calculation (rate and period), reasons for any delay, and a calculation sheet referenced in a prior Speed Post letter of early November 2019.
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Shri P. Jacintha, Pay and Accounts Officer, Doordarshan Kendra (PAO/DDK), Chennai, replied on 28.11.2019 with pointwise information: she advised that certain queries should be addressed to the respective DDO; stated that a copy of the authority had been handed to DDK and that e-payment authorization to the bank was dated 31.10.2019; indicated interest rate references (refer to GPF account slips for periods up to 2018-19 and 8% for 2019-20); and referred the Appellant to the GPF final payment authorization for period/month details. The PAO also said a reply had been furnished via office letter dated 22.11.2019 (copy enclosed).
Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.12.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), by order dated 08.01.2020, directed the CPIO to provide complete information quoting relevant rules/orders and specifically referenced DoP&T OM No. 11/2/2008-IR dated 10.07.2008 and Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Appellant subsequently filed a Second Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act on the ground of an unsatisfactory reply. At the Commission hearing the Appellant reiterated that he had not received the calculation sheet (point no. 5) and complained about delay in settlement and alleged evasive responses. The Respondent maintained that a categorical reply had been provided on 28.11.2019 and stated she was prepared to provide the calculation sheet despite the Appellant not having specifically sought it in point no. 5. The Commission orally directed the Respondent to hand over the calculation sheet during the hearing, and the Respondent acceded to this direction.
Written submissions from both parties were placed on record. The Respondent's written submissions reiterated her replies and relied on DoP&T OM No. 11/2/2008-IR (10.07.2008) to the effect that the PIO must supply material as held and is not required to conduct research or deduce information beyond the material held. The Appellant submitted that his final GPF slip was issued before retirement and that settlement was delayed by four months (settlement on 30.10.2019), causing alleged financial loss; he sought information to identify who caused the delay.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Respondent (CPIO/PAO) provided complete information in response to the Appellant's RTI application dated 25.11.2019, including the calculation sheet showing interest calculation and the period for which interest was applied.
- Whether the CPIO appropriately responded when some queries were addressed to the DDO and whether the PIO's duty includes collecting and deducing information from other offices when requested under RTI.
- Whether the Commission should intervene to adjudicate on the veracity of the information supplied or to identify officials responsible for any delay in settlement of the GPF amount.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Appellant was not satisfied with the information supplied and specifically alleged that the calculation sheet showing interest computation had not been provided (point no. 5).
- He asserted that his GPF final slip had been issued before retirement and that the final settlement was delayed by four months (settled on 30.10.2019), causing him potential financial loss from missed investment opportunities.
- The Appellant contended that the PAO was evasive and improperly shifted responsibility to Doordarshan Kendra (DDK), instead of providing information from records as required under the RTI Act.
- He complained about a discrepancy in the date recorded by the PAO for a letter he had sent (PAO showed receipt as 18.11.2019, whereas postal tracking indicated delivery on 06.11.2019) and delayed dispatch of replies.
- He sought identification of the employee/official responsible for the alleged intentional delay, intending to pursue remedy before the Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
Respondent's Arguments
- The Respondent submitted that a categorical and pointwise reply was furnished to the Appellant on 28.11.2019, and additionally by letter dated 22.11.2019 (copy enclosed) and 28.01.2020 where applicable.
- She noted that some queries were ambiguous (for example, queries asking about officials "retired along with me" without specifying offices) and that DoP&T OM No. 11/2/2008-IR (10.07.2008) requires the PIO to supply material as held and not to conduct research to deduce additional information.
- The Respondent stated that, although the Appellant had not specifically asked for a calculation sheet in point no. 5, she was prepared to provide the calculation sheet and acceded to the Commission's oral direction to hand it over during the hearing.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Commission reviewed the record, considered the oral and written submissions, and proceeded as follows:
- Assessment of replies on record: The Commission found that the Respondent had provided a pointwise written reply (letter dated 28.11.2019) and had supplied copies of the authority and GPF final payment authorization where relevant. The Respondent's written submissions reiterated these facts and included attachments as stated.
- Scope of RTI and duties of PIO: The Respondent relied on DoP&T OM No. 11/2/2008-IR dated 10.07.2008 (as recorded in the written submissions) to explain that the PIO is required to supply material as held and is not obliged to perform research or deduce information from existing material. The Commission took this as part of the context for the PAO's responses that referred some matters to the DDO and to the GPF account slips/authority documents rather than generating new compilations beyond existing records.
- Specific relief sought (calculation sheet): At the hearing the Commission queried the Appellant's dissatisfaction and focused on point no. 5 (the alleged non-supply of a calculation sheet). The Respondent stated she was ready to provide the calculation sheet; the Commission orally directed provision of that sheet during the hearing and the Respondent acceded to the direction.
- Limits of Commission's adjudicatory authority: The Commission observed that the Appellant's challenge was essentially to the veracity of the information already provided (i.e., he contested the correctness and completeness of returned material and sought to identify culpable officials). The Commission noted that such disputes over veracity or alleged administrative fault fall outside the Commission's adjudicatory powers under the RTI framework.
- Conclusion from analysis: Given the written replies, the additional willingness of the Respondent to provide the calculation sheet, and the limitation on the Commission's jurisdiction to adjudicate veracity or apportion blame for administrative delay, the Commission concluded there was no further scope for intervention in the matter.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Commission concluded that adequate reply had been provided by the Respondent and that the Appellant's contestation of veracity was beyond the Commission's adjudicatory power. Accordingly, the Commission found no further scope for intervention and DISPOSED OF the instant Second Appeal.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The Second Appeal is disposed of; the Commission directed that a copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties (the order so states); the Respondent acceded to an oral direction to hand over the requested calculation sheet during the hearing.
- Remedial limits: The Commission explicitly noted that it would not adjudicate on disputed veracity of the information or assign blame for administrative delays—matters the Appellant suggested could be pursued before other fora such as the Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The decision therefore leaves any grievance about correctness or disciplinary responsibility to be pursued outside the Commission's RTI adjudicatory remit.
- Precedential effect: The decision disposes the specific appeal and does not purport to set a new legal precedent; it applies existing administrative guidance (DoP&T OM) and the Commission's established jurisdictional limits as recorded in the order.
This summary strictly reflects the content of the provided opinion and does not add or infer information beyond the text of the decision.
1. The Appellant filed RTI Application dated 25.11.2019 seeking information on the following five points:
I retired on Superannuation on 30th June, 2019. On the same day Six other officials also retired along with me. As a Senior Citizen of India, I would like to raise the following queries under the Right to Information Act:
1. When the balance of General Provident Fund in respect of officials retired along with me were settled? Kindly provide the names, the date of authority issued and the date of credits given to their respective personal Bank accounts.
2. When the balance lying in my General Provident Fund Account was settled? Kindly provide the details of date of issuance of Authority and the date of credit given to my personal flank account.
3. Whether Interest on the balance lying in my General Provident Fund Account was calculated, if so, at what rate the interest was calculated and for how many months? Kindly provide the details of rate of interest and the period showing months for which the Interest was applied on the balance in my GPF?
4. If Interest was not calculated for the delayed period kindly provide the reason for the delay in settling the balance in my General Provident Fund Account?
5. Why there is no reply so far to my letter sent by Speed Post in the first week of November, 2019 requesting to send the Calculation Sheet showing the rate of Interest calculated on the balance in GPF Account and period for which the Interest calculated?
2. Shri P. Jacintha, Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Doordarshan Kendra, Chennai vide letter dated 28.11.2019, provided point-wise information to the Appellant as under:
Please find famished below the replies to your queries vide your letter cited. Replies to queries under RTI vide letter no dated 25.11.2019 in respect of Sh. A.S. Sundaram, UDC, DDK, Chennai,
Sl. No. Queries Replies by PAO, DDK, Chennai 1. When the balance of GPF in respect of official rttircd along with me were settled? Kindly provide the name, the date of authority issued and date of credits given to their respective personal bank accounts. Respective DDO may be addressed. 2. Details of date of issuance of Authority and the date of credit given to my personal account? a). Copy of Authority wag already handed over to DDK, Chennai where you last served. b). Date of e-payment authorization to the bank is 31.10.2019. 3. a). What rate the interest was calculated and for how mdny months? b). Kindly provide the details of rate of interest and the period showing months for which the interest was applied. a). Rate of interest for the period up to 2018-2019 please refer to corresponding GPF account slips Rate of interest for the year 2019-2020 is 8%. b). Period showing months for which the interest was applied : Please refer to copy or GPF final payment authorization endorsed to you. (pleace see reply (a) of Sl. No. a above) 4. The reason for the delay in settling the balance in my GPF account. As the final settlement of GPF in PAO can be done only after it has been initiated by DDO, you may please obtain the reason from the DDO-DDK, Chennai. 5. Why there is no reply so far to my letter seeking Calculation sheet showing the rate of interest calculated on the balance of GPF account and period for which the interest calculated? a). Reply has been furnished vide this office letter no. PAO/DDK/GPF/2018-19/2639, dated 22.11.2019 (copy enclosed) b). Period for which the interest calculated: Please refer to reply (b) of Sl. No. 3 above.
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.12.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 08.01.2020, directed to Smt. P. Jacintha, Central Public Information Officer, Pay & Accounts Office (DD), Room No. 312, 3 Floor, DDK, Swami Sivinanda Salai, Chennai and endorsed a copy to Appellant as under:
This office is in receipt of 1 Appeal dated 23.12.2019 filed by Sh, A S Sundaram against the reply of CPIO, PAO (DDK) Chennai related to his RTI Application.
2. In this connection, it is directed to provide complete information duly quoting the relevant rules/orders wherever applicable and also keeping in view the directions issued by DoP&T vide OM No. 11/2/2008-IR dated 10.07.2008 and Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 to the appellant.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
4. The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
5. The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application. Upon being queried by the Commission to elaborate the point of discontentment, he stated that with respect to point no. 5 of his RTI Application, he has not been provided the averred calculation sheet.
6. The Respondent submitted that a categorical reply has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 28.11.2019. She further added that though the Appellant has not specifically asked for any calculation sheet in point no. 5 of his RTI Application, she is ready to provide the same to the Appellant.
7. The Commission orally directed the Respondent to handover the averred calculation sheet to the Appellant during the hearing. She acceded with the oral direction of the Commission. She further reiterated the contents of her written submission dated 23.12.2021.
8. A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri P. Jacintha, Pay and Accounts Officer, Doordarshan Kendra, vide letter dated 23.12.2021, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
Sl. No. Queries vide RTI application dated 25.11.2019 Reply by PAD, DDK, Chennai vide letter dt. 28.11.2019 and additional Information vide letter dated 28.01.2020 Remarks 1. When the balance of GFF in respect of official retired along with the were settled? Kindly provide the name, the date of authority issued and date of credits given to their respective personal bunk accounts. Respective DDO may be addressed. The query is ambiguous for the reason that the office/offices to which the “officialsretired alongwith” referred to belongs has not been mentioned. Also as per DoP&T OM No. 11/2/2008-IR dated 10.07.2008, “the PIO is required to supply the ‘material’ in the form as held by the public authority and is not required, to do research on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the materia] and then suoply it to him.” 2. When the balance lying in my General Provident Fund Account was settled? Kindly provide Details of date of issuance of Authority and the date of credit given to my peresnal servent? a) Copy of Authority was already handed over to DDK, Chennai where you last served. b). Date of e-payment authprization to the bank is 31.10.2019. Information supplied. copy of office copy of authority is attached 3. Whether interest on the balance lying in my General Provident Fund Account was calculated, if so, (a) at What rate the intreat was calculated and for how many raontha? b). Kindly provide the details of rate of interest and the period showing months for which the interest was applied on the balance in my GPF a). Rate of interest for the period up to 2018-19 : please refer to corresponding GPF account slips. Rale of interest for the year 2019-2020 is 8%. b). Period showing months for which the interest was applied : Please refer to copy of GPF final payment authorization endorsed to you, (please see reply (a) of Sl. No. 2 above) Information supplied: Copy of office copy of GPP final payment authorisation is attached 4. If interest was not calculated for the delayed period kindly provide the reason for the delay in settling the balance in my GPF account? As the final settlement of GPF can be done only after it has been Initiated by DDO, you may please obtain the reason from the DDO-DDK, Chennai. No information available with this office in material form. As per DoP&T OM No. 11/2/2006-IR dated 10.07.2008 “the PIO is required to supply the “material’ in the form as held by the public authority and is not required to do research on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and then supply it to him.” 5. Why there is no reply so far to my letter sent by Speed Post in the first week of November 2019 requesting to send the calcuation sheet showing the rate of interest calculated on the balance of GPF account and period for which the interest calculated? a). Reply has been furnished vide this office letter No. FAO/DDK/GPF/2018-19/2639, dt, 22.11.2019 (copy enclosed) b). Period for which the interest calculated : Please refer to reply (b) of Sl. No. 3 above. Information supplied.
9. A written submission has been received by the Commission from the Appellant vide letter 23.12.2021, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
1. I reiterate the grounds of appeal made in the appeal papers filed with CIC.
2. I further submit this Written Submission as instructed by ClC to the link provided in the personal hearing notice.
3. The Final Slip of General Provident Fund for the Financial Year 2018-2019 was issued to me 3 months before my retirement on 30.06.2019. There we re no complications in my GPF Account, as there were no withdrawals or Advance from my GPF A/c. In spite of the above facts, the final settlement was delayed by 4 months and settled only on 30 October, 2019. Had the GPF amount was settled on time, I could have invested the money earlier and got a high rate of interest prevailed at that time. I need the information about the employee/official who caused intentional delay to claim the interest loss by filing application before Civil Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
4. When I requested for Calculation Sheet of Interest calculated on my GPF Amount paid on 31.10.2019 vide tetter dated 1.11.2019 the PAD vide their letter no.PAO/DDK/GPF/2019-20/2639 dated 22.11.2019 advised me to contact Doordarshan Kendra, Chennai instead of providing the details from their records. In spite of the direction by the O/o. the Controller of Accounts, Principal Accounts Office, New Delhi HO 001 to PAD, DDK, Chennai to provide complete information duly quoting the relevant rules/orders to Appellant, the PAO was evasive by directing the Appellant to contact Doordarshan Kendra, Chennai. As per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO cannot direct the applicant to seek the information from some other employee/official and if the CPIO is not having the required information he/she is duty bound to collect the information and provide to the applicant.
5. When I queried under RTI why there was no reply so far to my letter dt. 1.11.2019 asking for Calculation Sheet, the PAD hurriedly sent me the reply letter dt.22.11.2019 showing my letter received date as 18.11.2019, whereas my letter was delivered to the PAD on 6.11.2019 itself as per the Postal Tracking Report. Their letter also reached me only on 3.12.2019.
6. For the Query under RTI for the break up for the rate of interest and the period showing months for which interest was applied, the PAO again gave evasive reply shifting the responsibility to DDK, Chennai.
7. I received the reply vide their letter no. PAO/DDK/CHN/PEN/19-20/305/2250 dated 23.10.2019 to my RTI query as follows:
“Authority is issued vide letter no.FNS5*A020M590O5/0S/20O0 dated 14.10.2019. Bill is yet to be sent by DDO to Pay and Accounts Office for Final Payment”
8. The information requested was sidelined and status of the GPF settlement was provided to me not the Authority of payment showing the interest paid for the period, rates etc. The information of who caused the delay and the reason for the delay as requested by me in the RTI application were not provided.
9. On an appeal to First appellate authority the authority directed the CPIO to provide the information requested for in the RTI application but the CPIO repeated the reply given for the original RTI Application.
10. Wow I am before the second appellate authority and plead to direct the CPIO to provide the exact and correct information requested for in my RTI application.
DECISION
10. Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that adequate reply was provided by the Respondent, the Appellant is contesting on the veracity of the same which is beyond the adjudicatory powers of the Commission. Hence, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
11. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.
12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
13. The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Alert