Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.K Sethumadhavan vs Ministry Of Railways on 7 July, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.K Sethumadhavan vs Ministry Of Railways on 7 July, 2011
                          In the Central Information Commission 
                                                                  at
                                                         New Delhi

                                                                                               File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000993
                                                                                                          

Heard through Video Conferencing.



Date  of Hearing     :  July 7, 2011

Date of Decision     :  July 7, 2011



Parties:

           Applicant


                    Shri K Sethumadhavan
                    Souparnika
                    (PO) Muthuthala
                    (Via) Pattambi
                    Palghat.

                    Applicant was  present.

           Respondent(s)

                    Southern Railway
                    Divisional Railway Manager's Office
                    Personnel Branch
                    Palghat - 678 002.

                    Represented by  : Shri Seetharam Sinku, AA
                                               Shri  Salim Javed, PIO

           Information Commissioner                     :   Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
                              In the Central Information Commission 
                                                                     at
                                                            New Delhi

                                                                                                   File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000993




                                                                 ORDER

Background

1. The RTI Application  dated  Nil was filed by the Applicant  with the PIO, Southern Railway, Palghat 

Division    seeking  information  related to  revision of  his pension   as per 6th  pay  commission and 

issuance  of  revised PPO  against 4 points.   The PIO replied on   15.10.2010 giving     point wise 

information.  The  Applicant, however,  filed his first appeal to which the Appellate Authority replied on 

9.12.2010   providing   further   information     and   also   stating     that   the   revised   Pension   Payment 

Authority’s   order   dated   14.1.2010     is   found   to   be   in   order.   Being   aggrieved   with   the   reply   the 

Applicant filed his second appeal dated 10.3.11 before the Commission.

     

Decision 

2. During the hearing the  Appellant sought further details with regard to his pension  since according to 

him   in   the   PPO     furnished   to   him   for   the   year   2010   the   details   therein   have   been   calculated 

incorrectly.  He sought other information – all related to calculation of his pension amounts. 

3. After hearing both parties, the Commission directs the  Appellate Authority to give a personal hearing 

to the Appellant and clarify his doubts with respect  to calculations that have been made while fixing 

his pension, and to issue a speaking order . The hearing may be held before 8th August 2011.

     3.    The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

 (Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy 

(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar

Cc      

1. Shri K Sethumadhavan
Souparnika
(PO) Muthuthala
(Via) Pattambi
Palghat.

2. The Public Information Officer
 Southern Railway
 Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
 Personnel Branch
 Palghat – 678 002.

    

3.           The Appellate Authority  
            Southern Railway
              Divisional Railway Manager's Office
              Personnel Branch
              Palghat - 678 002.



4.         Officer incharge NIC.

In   case,   the   Commission’s   above   directives   have   not   been   complied   with   by   the   Respondents,   the 
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, giving 
(1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellant   Authority, (4) copy 
of the Commission’s decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding 
the complaint.  In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.