Moneylife: Article: Friday, 20th June 2025.
It is indeed laudable that 80-year-old Kumar Ambwani invoked the Right to Information (RTI) Act at the department of pension and pensioners’ welfare, New Delhi, to overcome his confusion over which exact date his 20% additional pension would begin whether on attaining the age of 80 or only after completing 80 years.
Mr Ambwani sought
certified copies of all circulars, notifications, guidelines, and relevant
court judgments related to the issue.
However, this interesting and unusual request, under section 6 of the RTI Act, was stonewalled by the central information commission, with the observation that RTI applicant Ambwani was seeking “pension-related clarifications rather than information permissible under the Act.”
Central information commissioner (CIC) Anandi Ramalingam, during the second hearing appeal on 17 June 2025, ordered that the requisition of the octogenarian revolved ‘eligibility for an additional pension benefit’ and so it falls outside the jurisdiction of the RTI Act. Such issues, she clarified, should be addressed through appropriate service-related grievance mechanisms.
Reiterating that, even if she took a liberal approach to the merits of the RTI application, “it does not qualify as ‘information’ under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines information as material in any form, including records, documents, and memos.” And that the RTI application primarily sought interpretations and explanations regarding pension entitlements.
Defending the central public information officer (CPIO) of the department of pension and pensioners’ welfare, Ms Ramalingam wrote in her order that “The CPIOs are not mandated to provide opinions, explanations, or interpretations under the RTI framework.” She added a cautionary tone by stating against “extending the scope of section 2(f) to include deductions and inferences, as doing so would place an undue burden on CPIOs and expose them to penal consequences for potential misinterpretations.” And that, the CPIO abided by the RTI Act rules and that in future “any future queries seeking clarifications beyond existing records may rightly be denied under section 2(f) of the Act,” before dismissing the second appeal.
During the second appeal hearing, Mr Ambwani rued that he had been denied the 20% additional pension benefit after crossing the age of 80. He specifically sought clarification on whether the benefit is applicable immediately upon attaining the age of 80 or only after completing 80 years, along with other related queries.
About the RTI Application
To support his claim, Mr Ambwani cited the dictionary definition of ‘attaining’ as ‘to reach’ or ‘to arrive at’, arguing that by turning 80 on 30 April 2024, he should be eligible for the benefit on that very date. He wrote in his RTI application that he would be attaining the age of 80 on 30 April 2024 (date of birth: 30 April 1945) and sought a categorical response of ‘Yes or No’ on whether he would be entitled to the additional 20% pension from that date.
Mr Ambwani referred to the documentation issued by the pension department, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, where he specifically highlighted content from page 58 of the referenced material, which states that pensioners aged “80 years to less than 85 years” are entitled to an additional 20% of their basic pension.
The Reply by the CPIO
The CPIO argued that in a reply provided earlier, he had clearly stated that his office’s responsibility comprises policy formulation regarding pension and retirement benefits for Central government civil employees governed under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. And that, beyond providing him with the rules pertaining to additional pension benefits, no further information or official interpretation beyond the available records exists with the department. He also argued that “The RTI Act does not obligate the department to provide personal clarifications or interpretations not recorded or documented officially.”
In response to the RTI application, the CPIO had clarified that the department of pension and pensioners’ welfare serves as the nodal agency responsible for formulating policies related to pension and other retirement benefits for Central government civil employees governed under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021.
The CPIO also, in his reply, informed that the actual implementation of these rules and related instructions lies with the respective administrative ministries, departments, or organisations where the employees are posted. He noted that these rules are not applicable to employees of the ministry of railways, port trusts, Reserve Bank of India, public sector banks, public sector undertakings (PSUs), or state governments and Union territories.
It is indeed laudable that 80-year-old Kumar Ambwani invoked the Right to Information (RTI) Act at the department of pension and pensioners’ welfare, New Delhi, to overcome his confusion over which exact date his 20% additional pension would begin whether on attaining the age of 80 or only after completing 80 years.
However, this interesting and unusual request, under section 6 of the RTI Act, was stonewalled by the central information commission, with the observation that RTI applicant Ambwani was seeking “pension-related clarifications rather than information permissible under the Act.”
Central information commissioner (CIC) Anandi Ramalingam, during the second hearing appeal on 17 June 2025, ordered that the requisition of the octogenarian revolved ‘eligibility for an additional pension benefit’ and so it falls outside the jurisdiction of the RTI Act. Such issues, she clarified, should be addressed through appropriate service-related grievance mechanisms.
Reiterating that, even if she took a liberal approach to the merits of the RTI application, “it does not qualify as ‘information’ under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines information as material in any form, including records, documents, and memos.” And that the RTI application primarily sought interpretations and explanations regarding pension entitlements.
Defending the central public information officer (CPIO) of the department of pension and pensioners’ welfare, Ms Ramalingam wrote in her order that “The CPIOs are not mandated to provide opinions, explanations, or interpretations under the RTI framework.” She added a cautionary tone by stating against “extending the scope of section 2(f) to include deductions and inferences, as doing so would place an undue burden on CPIOs and expose them to penal consequences for potential misinterpretations.” And that, the CPIO abided by the RTI Act rules and that in future “any future queries seeking clarifications beyond existing records may rightly be denied under section 2(f) of the Act,” before dismissing the second appeal.
During the second appeal hearing, Mr Ambwani rued that he had been denied the 20% additional pension benefit after crossing the age of 80. He specifically sought clarification on whether the benefit is applicable immediately upon attaining the age of 80 or only after completing 80 years, along with other related queries.
About the RTI Application
To support his claim, Mr Ambwani cited the dictionary definition of ‘attaining’ as ‘to reach’ or ‘to arrive at’, arguing that by turning 80 on 30 April 2024, he should be eligible for the benefit on that very date. He wrote in his RTI application that he would be attaining the age of 80 on 30 April 2024 (date of birth: 30 April 1945) and sought a categorical response of ‘Yes or No’ on whether he would be entitled to the additional 20% pension from that date.
Mr Ambwani referred to the documentation issued by the pension department, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, where he specifically highlighted content from page 58 of the referenced material, which states that pensioners aged “80 years to less than 85 years” are entitled to an additional 20% of their basic pension.
The Reply by the CPIO
The CPIO argued that in a reply provided earlier, he had clearly stated that his office’s responsibility comprises policy formulation regarding pension and retirement benefits for Central government civil employees governed under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. And that, beyond providing him with the rules pertaining to additional pension benefits, no further information or official interpretation beyond the available records exists with the department. He also argued that “The RTI Act does not obligate the department to provide personal clarifications or interpretations not recorded or documented officially.”
In response to the RTI application, the CPIO had clarified that the department of pension and pensioners’ welfare serves as the nodal agency responsible for formulating policies related to pension and other retirement benefits for Central government civil employees governed under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021.
The CPIO also, in his reply, informed that the actual implementation of these rules and related instructions lies with the respective administrative ministries, departments, or organisations where the employees are posted. He noted that these rules are not applicable to employees of the ministry of railways, port trusts, Reserve Bank of India, public sector banks, public sector undertakings (PSUs), or state governments and Union territories.