Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000024
Dated February 4, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri K.C.Jain
Name of the Public Authority : Western Railway, Mumbai
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.28.12.08 with the CPIO, Divisional Office,
Western Railway, Mumbai stating that in response to an RTI application dt.17.9.08,
the PIO vide his reply dt.17.10.08 had informed him that the case of Shri Sumer
Singh, Retd. Mail Guard, BCT for grant of stagnation increment which was due from
1.3.2000 would be communicated with the approval of competent authority in due
course of time but nothing was mentioned regarding consequent revision of pension
and its arrears and so also for grant of interest on delayed settlement dues. More
than 2 months hava passed and nothing further has been heard. He requested for the
latest development with respect to the case. Shri B.Ramachandran, PIO replied on
6.2.09 enclosing the note dt.3.2.09 from Ms.Suchitra Bhandary, APIO-BCT stating that
the stagnation increment has been granted to Shri Sumer Singh on 20.11.08 and his
service sheet was sent to the settlement section on 25.11.08 for revision of pension
and arrears of settlement dues as per rules. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant
then wrote to the PIO on 28.5.09 stating that six months have passed since 25.11.08
and nothing has been heard about whether the pension has been revised or not. He
also invited the attention of the PIO to his earlier RTI application dt.17.9.08 wherein
he had asked for the reasons together with file notings for denying the interest @
12% for delayed payment of his settlement dues in spite of clear instructions of
Railway Board contained in the letter dt.13.6.1997 and requested the PIO to advise
the latest development in respect of the case for grant of interest. Shri
B.Ramachandran, PIO replied on 25.6.09 enclosing the note dt.23.6.09 from
APO(Bills) stating that information can be given only after obtaining third party’s
consent. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.21.7.09 with the
Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information. Shri A.K.Jha, Appellate
Authority replied on 28.8.09 informing the Applicant that the settlement dues have
been revised and giving a list of dues settled . He also added that the Applicant in his
letter dt.28.5.09 had not shown whether the consent of Shri Sumer Singh was taken
or not and hence the case has been treated as third party information. He further
added that settlement dues were not delayed on administration grounds as the same
were pending due to vigilance case, hence interest is not admissible as per extent rule.
Being aggrieved with the reply, applicant filed a second appeal dt.11.11.09 before CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing
for February 4, 2010.
3. Shri Nandkumar, APO(Bills), Shri Sridhar, Shri J.S.Panwar, APO and Ms.Kulkarni, Sr.
Clerk represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was heard through audio conferencing.
Decision
5. The Appellant submitted that after a period of 30 days, the PIO, instead of answering
all the questions has only submitted a note to him and that no information has been
provided against points 2 and 3 related to granting interest on delayed payment. He
also pointed out that as per Railway Board’s instructions contained in their letter no.
F(E)III/97/PNI/6 dated 13.6.97, the payment of interest at 12% on delayed payment
of settlement of dues on account of pending disciplinary action is admissible . He
contended that the Appellate Authority has failed to provide the rules under which the
interest is not payable. Shri Nandkumar submitted that the Appellant had asked for
stagnation increment and arrears for the period from the date of stagnation increment
to the date of retirement and also for the interest because of late payment of gratuity.
He added that a vigilance case was pending against Shri Sumer Singh and the case
was over only in 2008. Shri Sumer Singh was exonerated and after that all payments
due to the Appellant were made. As for the Railway Board letter mentioned by the
Appellant, Shri Nandkumar stated that the circular was not clear and hence he had to
put up the same to the Competent Authority for further clarification. The
Commission, however, is of the opinion that there is absolutely no ambiguity
in respect of the contents of the Railway Board’s letter and that the Railway
Authorities have deliberately delayed the matter and strongly recommends
that appropriate action be taken with regard to payment of interest on
delayed payment to the Appellant, under intimation to the Commission . In
this connection, the Respondent also informed the Commission that he had put up a
note to the competent authority for his approval for payment of interest and is
awaiting his decision. With regard to point 2 about the file notings, the Respondent
added that the file notings were provided vide letter dt.17.10.08. The Respondent
then invited the Appellant to inspect the relevant files and the Appellant agreed to do
so between 9 and 13 February . The Commission accordingly directs the PIO to allow
inspection of Mr. Sumer Singhs’s file by the Appellant, after obtaining a written or oral
submission from Mr. Sumer Singh as per provisions of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act
and provide authenticated documents to the Appellant.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri K.C.Jain
Sr. Citizen & Social Activist
26/284, New Govind Nagar
Ramganj
Ajmer 305 001
2. The PIO
Western Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Personnel Department
Mumbai Central
Mumbai 400 008
3. The Appellate Authority
Western Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Personnel Department
Mumbai Central
Mumbai 400 008
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC