LAWS(CI)-2015-2-10

SANTOSH CHAND Vs. MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Decided On February 06, 2015
Santosh Chand Appellant
V/S
MINISTRY OF FINANCE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant, Shri Santosh Chand Kothari, submitted RTI application dated 13.06.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi seeking information regarding release of increment as on 1.7.2006 after stepping up of pay of employee at par with his junior on 21.1.2006 and further clarifications through 10 points.

(2.) THE CPIO vide letter dated 8.7.2013 informed the complainant in response to (a), (b) and (i) that Rule 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 is self explanatory; in response to point (c), (d) and (f) the information had already been provided in the U.O., Note No. 56888/E.III -A/2012 dated 11.4.2013, a copy of the same was provided to the complainant; on point (e) the CPIO replied 'No'; in response to (g) and (h) the applicant has sought clarification which is not covered under the RTI Act, as the same was not held by them in material form. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the complainant preferred appeal on 06.08.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA) on the grounds that the first increment on 1.1.2006 in the pre -revised structure is linked to a minimum period of 6 months in the revised structure, which is already fulfilled in his case in view of his option for the revised pay structure from 1.1.2006 and the same is not linked to stepping up of his pay on 21.1.2006. The FAA vide his order dated 10.09.2013 held that the appellant had to see the existing instructions on grant of increment in the light of stepping up of pay. The FAA directed the CPIO to call the appellant for a personal hearing and explain the position in the light of facts available with him. In compliance with directions of the FAA, the CPIO vide letter dated 27.09.2013 informed the complainant that since he had stepped up his pay on 21.1.2006 and he had not completed six months of service on the same pay as on 1.7.2006, hence he was not eligible for increment on 1.7.2006.

(3.) THEREAFTER the complainant filed the instant complaint before the Commission.