In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001114
Date of Hearing : July 22, 2011
Date of Decision : July 22, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri B. Dasaratha Raju
New No.5, Old No.3
Sai Nagar, 3rd Street
Chennai 00 082
The Applicant was present at NIC Studio, Chennai
Respondents
The Public Information Officer
Southern Railway
Divisional Railway Manager's Office
Personnel Branch
Chennai Division
Chennai 600 003
Represented by : Shri A Narayanan, PIO & Sr.DPO
Ms.Usha Venugopal, Appellate Authority & ADRM
NIC Studio, Chennai
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001114
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.30.11.10 with the PIO, Southern Railway, Chennai Division
seeking the following information:
i) Reason/s for not issuing the revised PPA of B.Dasaratharaju whose PPo No.060216066
ii) The status of revised PPA of Shri B. Dasaratharaju.
Shri A. Narayanan, PIO replied on 16.12.10 stating that his case has already been examined and he
has been advised to submit certain documents vide letter dt.7.12.10. On receipt of the same,
necessary revised PPO will be generated and a copy of the same will be sent to the Applicant. He
also advised the Applicant to contact APO/Settlement, Chennai Division for further follow up of his
grievance. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.1.1.11 with the Appellate Authority seeking the status of
his PPO. Shri K. Rajendran, Appellate Authority replied on 1.2.11 stating that the Applicant has been
advised by the PIO to submit the data forms for Pre2006 pensioners along with some documents for
arranging revision of PPO. Since these documents are prerequisite for issuing revised PPO, the
same may be submitted to the PIO for issuing revised PPO at the earliest. Being aggrieved with the
reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.2.4.11 before CIC.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that there are more than 50,000 pensioners whose
pensions are being revised in a phased manner. In the Appellant’s case he had retired in 31.7.1993
and after the implementation of the Fifth pay Commission recommendations, it is necessary to submit
the date of birth of the Appellant’s spouse which in this case is not available in their records. Hence
vide letter dt.7.12.10, the Appellant was asked to submit the details which he has not done till date.
The Appellant on the other hand maintained that when the PPO was issued in 2.8.93 the details of
his spouse were entered in it and that information ought to be available with the office. He wondered
how when the old PPO with his spouse’s details are available with him the same is not available with
the office of the Public Authority. The Appellant however later handed over the copies of documents
containing details of his spouse to the PIO as sought by him. On receipt of the documents, the PIO
assured the Commission that the PPO will be revised within one month.
3. Since the Appellant has assured the Commission that the Appellant’s grievance will be redressed
within one month, the case is directed to be closed.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri B. Dasaratha Raju
New No.5, Old No.3
Sai Nagar, 3rd Street
Chennai 00 082
2. The Public Information Officer
Southern Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Personnel Branch
Chennai Division
Chennai 600 003
3. The Appellate Authority
Southern Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Personnel Branch
Chennai Division
Chennai 600 003
4. Officer in charge, NIC