Dr Raja Muzaffar Bhat
Recently the State Information Commissioner in one of his orders said that Right to Information Act (RTI) can’t be used to settle personal scores or to seek redressal of grievance or settling service matter. The State Information Commissioner issued this order while hearing a 2nd appeal filed by a retired employee of Power Development Department before the State Information Commission (SIC). Some local dailies even carried news reports on this issue. As a campaigner and advocate of Right to Information Act (RTI), I feel this order needs to be revisited as it may leave very serious imprints. In future many Government officials may quote this order and seek undue relief by not revealing genuine information to aggrieved.
Background of Case :
A retired employee of Power Development Department (PDD) namely Mukhtar Ahmad Tanki sought intervention of State Information Commission (SIC) when he was not satisfied with the orders of the Public Information Officer (PIO) and First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the PDD. Tanki filed second appeal before the State Information Commission (SIC) on 26th October 2017. The appeal was mooted against the office of Chief Engineer Electric Maintenance & Rural Engineering wing Kashmir (EM&RE). The retired employee alleged that the PIO of the Chief Engineer’s office provided him incomplete information vide his official letter No. ED-II/1338-39 2 dated 15-06-2017. Being aggrieved with the reply of PIO, Mukhtar Ahmad Tanki filed first appeal before the Chief Engineer who is also the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 15-07-2017. The FAA (Chief Engineer EM&RE) vide letter No. CE/M&RE/Adm-I/RTI/PF/9970-74/AS dated 01-08-2017 asked the PIO to go through the contents of the RTI application and provide the remaining information to the retired official. The PIO provided the remaining information to him on one more point, but the information seeker was not satisfied at all. Finally he knocked the doors of State Information Commission (SIC) by filing 2nd appeal with the request to direct the PIO of Chief Engineer EM&RE office to provide him complete information as sought under RTI Act…..
Information sought ?
Information seeker Mukhtar Ahmad Tanki vide his RTI application dated 18th May 2017 sought information on four points from the PIO of Chief Engineer EM&RE Kashmir. The information sought pertained to the benefits of SRO 59 to the employees of Power Development Department. The PIO according to information seeker provided incomplete information and information seeker filed an appeal before the Chief Engineer EM&RE Kashmir who is also the First Appellate Authority (FAA) under J&K RTI Act 2009. After filing of the first appeal, the PIO responded his RTI application vide letter dated 15-05- 2017 providing part of the information. Again the information seeker was not satisfied with the information provided. He subsequently filed second appeal before the State Information Commission (SIC). When the 2nd appeal was admitted before SIC, the PIO submitted his counter reply before SIC vide his letter No. ED-II/3997- 4003 dated 13-11-2017. PIO in his reply told the Commission that the information sought by Information seeker has been provided to him. The appeal came up for hearing once again on 29th Dec 2017. Irshad Ahmad Sofi, PIO in the office of Chief Engineer, Bashir Ahmad Dar, AEE/PIO Electric Division-II and appellant Mukhtar Ahmad Tanki, attended the hearing. During proceedings, the PIO submitted that complete information has been provided to the appellant. The appellant admitted to have received the information. He, however, submitted that the Chief Engineer, EM&RE Wing, Kashmir has withdrawn the benefit of SRO 59 in his case after his retirement from the service and the reasons for this were not being revealed.
SIC’s final order:
While deciding this case the State Information Commissioner Mohammad Ashraf Mir issued following orders:
“The appellant actually has a grievance against the Department that he has been denied the benefit of SRO 59. This is a service matter and can be agitated by the appellant at the appropriate forum. Service disputes cannot be settled through the medium of RTI Act. The provisions of the Right to Information Act cannot be used to settle personal scores or to seek redressal of grievances or for settling service disputes. The information sought by the appellant through his RTI application has been provided to him by the PIO. For settling his service dispute, the appellant should approach the appropriate authority. The 2nd appeal is accordingly disposed of ”
Conclusion :
I believe Mukhtar Ahmad Tanki a retired employee of Power Development Department (PDD) has some genuine service matter wherein Chief Engineer EM&RE Kashmir hasn’t allegedly addressed the same. If he invokes Right to Information (RTI) for getting his grievance addressed by seeking an answer from the Chief Engineers office, I don’t think there is any harm in this . I know many individual cases wherein people invoked RTI to get genuine individual benefits. When a citizen living under Below Poverty Line (BPL) was not enlisted in a rural housing scheme (Indira Awaas Yojna now called PMs AwaasYojna) several years back in Kutbal village of Budgam, he invoked RTI Act and got justice after some months. Similarly many individuals got entitlement for old age pension using RTI.
A doctor who failed in MD theory exam was declared to have qualified the same after he underwent inspection of his answer paper in 2012 at SKIMS invoking section 2 (i) of J&K RTI Act 2009. If a retired employee is denied justice and he invokes RTI which is his or her only weapon, I don’t think State Information Commission (SIC) should have any objection. SIC has to decide appeals within the ambit of J&K RTI Act 2009 , if the information is worth revealing I feel SIC should not tell an information seeker that RTI should not be used to settle service disputes. I can quote several examples wherein Government employees got justice after invoking RTI Act. If SIC finds that RTI is used to harass or creating pressure on Govt officers , the information seeker can be reprimanded, but if someone is trying to get his service matter addressed why shall he be denied this right ?
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel