Disclose ACRs and Overall profile to retired officer : Central Info Commission

The CIC had earlier in many decisions held that ACRs need not be disclosed to RTI Applicants.

However, in a major and important decision, it has been held by the CIC in an appeal by a retired Colonel, that such information can be disemminated to retired officers since "the only effect of such disclosure could be to either confirm or rectify a promotion made in the case of an error or oversight and, therefore, at best lead to readjustment of pension benefits to applicant."

The entire decision (Col Goswami Vs Directorate of Military Intelligence) is available here on the CIC website

Interesting defence related RTI Query, equally interesting order by the Central Info Commission

Click here for the complete order

Lt Col Kartar Singh of Dehradun had floated an interesting RTI Application. Though it was not exactly under the purview of the RTI Act and his queries did not even qualify the definition of ‘information’, here is what he had sought :-

Note :- The spelling mistakes / grammatical errors are not mine :-)

“(a) After the Supreme Court’s judgment, the issue of one rankone pension was taken up with the then Prime Minister,Indira Gandhi but IAS Cadre opposed it. When under thesimilar circumstances, the Court’s Directive wasimplemented in respect of their civilian counter part while theMPs and the Judiciary got themselves entitled to the same.Why then the Defence Pensioners were denied their rights,justice and equality and treated so shabbily? Pleaseintimate the name (s) and designation (s) of the officer (s)who was/ were responsible for the discrimination and one (s)who approved this and their reasons to negate the SupremeCourt’s Directive and later the 4th and 5th CPC’srecommendations.

(b) Rajiv Gandhi promised one rank one pension in his electionmanifesto but after his victory said there were financialconstraints. Please give the name (s) of the officer (S) whogave this advice and why?

(c) The then President of India addressing the first nonCongress government declared on the floor of theParliament House that his Government shall implement onerank one pension but later nothing materialized. Who wasthe person responsible to over ride the President’sdeclaration and why?

(d) Why, after the Supreme Court Directive of Dec 1982, theverdict of the specifically set up Central AdministrativeTribunal in favour of the pre 1973 defence pensionersrecommending the benefits of 1973 measures was neverimplemented? And why later spilt hairs by going to theSupreme Court and not honouring the agreement reachedbetween the advocates of the pensioners (will not insist forgratuity) and of the government (not of oppose hike inpension) thereby committing a breach of faith and trust?

(e) Why the recommendations of the 4th and 5th CPCs wereimplemented in respect of civilian pensioners but thoserelating to the Defence personnel and Pensioners weremodified to discriminate them? Please give name (S) anddesignation (S) of the officer (S) for this divide and rulepolicy and discrimination between the same class of people.Photo copy of the internal file nothings justifying the denialplease be given.

(f) Why were the recommendation of the high level committeesset up by the government and chaired by Mr. Singh Deo,and Shri Aeun Singh to grant one Rank one Pension werenot implemented? Please name the person and his reasonsto derail the justice. Please give photo copy of the internalfile nothings.

(g) Why the weight age to extend the actual service to 33 yearsas pension able service was fixed arbitrarily as this amountto breach of trust and faith. Please name the person for thisarbitrary decision and his reasons (please give the photocopy of the internal file notings at all the levels.

(h) On what legal ground committees of Group of Ministers wereconstituted later to negate and over ride the Supreme CourtDirective, the 4th and 5th CPCs recommendations and notundo the arbitrary fixation of weight age that was to ensure33 years pensionable service.

(i) Why the recommendations vide (d) and (f) were rejected (notimplemented) but those of at (h) were accepted. Pleasename the advisor (s) in both the cases with detailed reasons.

(j) What is the government’s intention to refer to the 6th CPCthe issue of non implementation of Supreme Court’sDirective and the recommendations of the last two CPCsrelated to Defence Services Pensioners? Is it to furtherdelay the due rights and justice to the senior pensioners onthe verge of kicking the bucket so that more may die or is itto seek approval of the arbitrary and discriminatory decisionmaking process of divide and rule.

(k) Why do the politician occupying the seat of power andbureaucrat advisors feel/ think that they can legally reduce,redefine and negate Supreme Court’s Directives and everything in the Constitution to suit their convenience and ulteriormotives? If ‘not’ then why this “non implementation” of theSupreme Court Directive dated 17th December 1982 as wellas the recommendation of the 4th and 5th CPCs in respect ofDefence Services and Pensioners only. (Details of interoffice noting on the files leading to denial of justice please begiven).

(l) Why did the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri misled the Parliamentwhen answering a supplementary to Un Starred questionNo. 206 in December 2004, that there were no anomalies inimplementation of V CPC pension Award for Ex-Servicemen;(Para 3 of his statement) when they are there a plenty inblack and white. Please name the person who wrote thisbrief over looking the ground realities.

(m) Will, those responsible for arbitrariness and discriminatorypolicies ever realize that, “if the treatment of those whoserved to protect the national integrity, (giving the best partof their lives) cannot be liberal or constructive and injusticerectified, then, the Defences Forces will be filled with moretime servers than in the past and will stagnate to be a greatwaste of ‘nation’s treasure in time to come”? Indications ofthis unfortunately are already there and very much visibleand disturbing.

(n) Every time the issue of non implementation of the one rankone pension and recommendations of the CPCs is taken up,the response always has been the non existing boggy offinancial constraints. If this (financial constraints) is thehonest truth then will the government please answer whythese very financial constraints were not or are nothindrance or are of no concern and therefore, not applicableto:

(aa) Civilian Pensioners.
(ab) MPs and MLAs.
(ac) Judiciary.
(ad) Granting of pensionary benefits recently to those MPs of bygone days not entitled to so far.
(ae) Recent hike of Rs. 35,000/- in salary/ perks of Delhi MLAswhen the capital suffers lack of proper drainage system,water, electricity and effective law and orders.
(af) MPs, voting for themselves ever increasing salaries,pensions and perks by thousand of rupees so often and nowDA to RS. 1000/-pd when their food, residence and transportis heavily subsidized/
(ag) Misuse of local area development fund by MPs as recentlyexposed; crores are being wasted there being less ofdevelopment and more of corrupt practices.
(ah) Writing off damaged food grains worth crores of rupeesevery year or so because of poor storage and lack ofeffective supervision and control…
(ai) Writing off framers loans and electricity charges worththousand of crores every now and then without eliminatingthe real cause of their problems- grossly reduced fertility ofland due to ever increasing input and over use of expensivechemicals every year.
(aj) Creation of a renewal fund of RS. 500/- crores for the benefitof the labour force of the Public sector Undertakingsincurring recurring losses.
(ak) When crores of rupees of the public money is wasted sooften in the Parliament due to non issues being raised,stoppage of proceedings when the MPs disobey theSpeaker, followed by Frequent walk outs and avoidableadjournment of the House.
(al) When the pension of a lakh of freedom fighters (who are stillsaid to be alive) is increased to over Rs. 10000/- pm when ithas been accepted that more than 40% are fake.
(am) The recent decision to pay Haj subsidies (Rs. 10000/- ph) toadditional 10000 Muslims (total now being 1,10000) everyyear when India is a secular nation and the religion apersonal matter.
(an) Crores being spent on advertisements by the Centre to builtimages of the political leaders.”

And here is what the Hon’ble Commission decided, an interesting order :

Having heard the parties and examined the record we find that indeed each of the questions posed under the heading Information sought and required are not requests for information but assertion with a wealth of innuendo. Even where information can be purported to have been sought, this cannot be defined as information u/s 2 (f) read with Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act and it refers to seeking the identity of those who in the view of appellant ‘conspired’ to deny servicemen their pensions. It can only, therefore, be inferred from the statement of respondent Shri Harbans Singh that such information as is sought by Lt. Col. Kartar Singh is not held by the public authority. What is clear from the application and the arguments before us is that Lt. Col. Kartar Singh nurses a deep grievance in the manner in which decisions of the Supreme Court regarding pre-1986 Defence Services Pensioners Pension have been disposed of.

Whereas, therefore, the request of Lt. Col. Kartar Singh is outside the purview of the RTI Act, giving due weight to the grievance held by this very senior officer of our Armed Forces and with fullest respect for his services to the nation, we have agreed to refer this matter to the Minister of Defence Shri A.K. Antony for sympathetic consideration