Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| — | cases:aft-rti-pension-records-2023 [2026/07/18 08:11] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{htmlmetatags> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====== Your armed-forces pension and service records under RTI — the verified law ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP center round info 95%> | ||
| + | **Quick answer.** Yes — the Army, Navy and Air Force are **covered by the RTI Act, 2005**. They are not in the Second Schedule of exempt intelligence and security organisations, | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP center round alert 95%> | ||
| + | **Editorial correction (10 July 2026).** An earlier version of this page summarised an Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench ruling described as **OA 567/2023, //Col. P. Mehta v. Ministry of Defence//, decided 7 November 2023**. We re-checked Indian Kanoon and publicly available AFT records and **could not verify that any such decision exists** — and the page's external citation link was literally a " | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== The armed forces are under RTI ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Section 24 of the RTI Act exempts only the **intelligence and security organisations listed in the Second Schedule** — bodies such as the Intelligence Bureau, R&AW, BSF, CRPF, NSG and Assam Rifles, with additions over the years by gazette notification. The **Army, Navy and Air Force are not in that Schedule**. A serving member, a veteran or a family pensioner can file RTI applications with the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, the service headquarters, | ||
| + | |||
| + | Even for the organisations that //are// in the Second Schedule, the provisos to Section 24(1) keep two doors open: information about **allegations of corruption** is never excluded, and information about **allegations of human-rights violations** must be given with the Information Commission' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Your own record vs someone else's ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Section 8(1)(j) exempts " | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **Your own pension and service records** — Section 8(1)(j) exists to protect the person the information is about. When the applicant //is// that person, there is no third party whose privacy could be invaded. The Supreme Court' | ||
| + | * **Someone else's pension or service records** — the Supreme Court in //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC// (2013) 1 SCC 212 held that a public servant' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== The verified authorities ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ^ Authority ^ What it says ^ Where to read it ^ | ||
| + | | //Dev Dutt v. Union of India//, (2008) 8 SCC 725, decided 12 May 2008 | Every entry in a government servant' | ||
| + | | //Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India//, (2013) 9 SCC 566, decided 23 April 2013 | Three-judge bench affirms the //Dev Dutt// communication rule as settled law | [[https:// | ||
| + | | //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC//, (2013) 1 SCC 212, decided 3 October 2012 | A **third party** cannot get your service or pension records under RTI without a larger public interest — s.8(1)(j) shields you from others | [[https:// | ||
| + | | //Girish Chandra v. Ministry of Defence//, CIC/ | ||
| + | | Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 — ss.3(o), 14 | " | ||
| + | | RTI Act, 2005 — ss.2(f), 6(1), 7(1), 8(1)(j), 19, 24 and Second Schedule | Armed forces not in the Second Schedule; own-record requests follow the ordinary RTI timeline and appeal chain | [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Where your pension records actually live ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Address your RTI to the office that **holds** the record, or it will spend weeks in Section 6(3) transfers: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **Your record office** (for JCOs/OR: the Records of your Regiment or Corps; for officers: the respective service headquarters) — service record, discharge documents, [[/ | ||
| + | * **PCDA (Pensions), Prayagraj** and the Defence Accounts Department — pension sanction, corrigendum PPOs, arrears calculation sheets. | ||
| + | * **SPARSH** ([[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | RTI becomes the right tool when SPARSH or the record office does not respond, when you need **certified copies** for a tribunal, or when you need the file notings behind a decision — why a claim was rejected, when your case moved between offices, and who sat on it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== How to word your RTI application ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Send it to the CPIO of the record-holding office with the ₹10 central fee. Ask for records, not explanations: | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | Under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, I request the following | ||
| + | information relating to me (I am the subject of these records): | ||
| + | |||
| + | 1. Certified copy of my pension fixation/ | ||
| + | the PPO and every corrigendum PPO issued in my case, as per | ||
| + | | ||
| + | 2. Certified copies of my Last Pay Certificate and the data sheet | ||
| + | or LPC-cum-data sheet forwarded to PCDA (Pensions) in my case. | ||
| + | 3. Certified extract of my service and pay verification records | ||
| + | held by the record office. | ||
| + | 4. The daily progress of the file dealing with my pension claim | ||
| + | dated [date], including dates of receipt and forwarding between | ||
| + | | ||
| + | |||
| + | A reply is due within 30 days under Section 7(1). Since these are | ||
| + | my own records, the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) does not apply | ||
| + | against me. If any part is withheld, please cite the exact | ||
| + | provision and inform me of my right to first appeal under | ||
| + | Section 19(1). | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | You can generate a clean version with the [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== RTI or AFT? Two different tracks — run both ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | A common and costly confusion, and exactly what the fabricated summary this page used to carry got wrong: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **RTI gets you the // | ||
| + | * **The AFT decides the // | ||
| + | * **Run them in parallel.** Use RTI to extract the documents and file notings; use the OA to attack the decision itself, with the RTI output as your evidence. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== If the PIO refuses ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | - **Read the refusal against the law.** A bare " | ||
| + | - **File a first appeal within 30 days** under Section 19(1) using the [[https:// | ||
| + | - **Track the clock** with the [[https:// | ||
| + | - **Second appeal to the CIC** under Section 19(3) if the appellate authority also refuses. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For the full escalation playbook, see [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== FAQ ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Are the Army, Navy and Air Force exempt from RTI? ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | No. Section 24 exempts only the intelligence and security organisations notified in the Second Schedule — the three services are not in it. The Ministry of Defence, service headquarters, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Can the PIO refuse my own pension file under Section 8(1)(j)? ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Not sustainably. Section 8(1)(j) protects personal information from **third parties**. When you seek your own pension fixation papers, PPO or service verification, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Can I get another veteran' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Generally no. //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande// (2013) 1 SCC 212 holds that a public servant' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Should I complain to the AFT if my RTI is denied? ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | No — the AFT does not hear RTI appeals. RTI denials go to the departmental first appellate authority and then to the Central Information Commission. The AFT is where you challenge the **pension decision itself** (fixation, disability element, arrears) by Original Application under the AFT Act, 2007. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Do I even need RTI to get my pension documents? ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Often not. If your pension is on SPARSH, your PPO and pension statements are available from your SPARSH login, and record offices reply to ordinary requests too. RTI is the tool when those routes stall, when you need certified copies as evidence, or when you need the file notings behind an adverse decision. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Sources ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * //Dev Dutt v. Union of India//, (2008) 8 SCC 725 — [[https:// | ||
| + | * //Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India//, (2013) 9 SCC 566 — [[https:// | ||
| + | * //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC//, (2013) 1 SCC 212 — [[https:// | ||
| + | * //Girish Chandra v. Ministry of Defence//, CIC/ | ||
| + | * Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, ss.3(o) and 14 — [[https:// | ||
| + | * The Right to Information Act, 2005 — ss.2(f), 6(1), 7(1), 8(1)(j), 19, 24, Second Schedule | ||
| + | * SPARSH — [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Related on RTI Wiki ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[:act|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP center round alert 95%> | ||
| + | **Editorial summary, not a certified report.** Verify every citation against the full reported decision before using it in a PIO order, first appeal or any filing. RTI Wiki is not a legal service. Content licence: CC-BY 4.0 · Big Helpers (bighelpers.in). | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | //Editorial summary · reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak · last reviewed 10 July 2026.// | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{tag> | ||