Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000536
Dated May 24, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri Chandrakishore Upadhyay
Name of the Public Authority : DRM Office
North Western Railway, Jodhpur
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI application dt.14.9.09 with the PIO, DRM Office, North Western Railway,
Jodhpur seeking information about live register against 4 points including the no. of such registers at
the divisional level, as also the name of the competent authority who can include his name at this
stage. The PIO replied on 12.10.09 enclosing the information dt.8.10.09 furnished by Shri Kailash
Panwar, Sr.DPO.. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.13.11.09 with the
Appellate Authority seeking the correct and complete information. On not receiving any reply from the
Appellate Authority, he filed a second appeal dt.1.2.10 before CIC reiterating his request for the
information.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for May 24,
2010.
3. Shri Ashok Kumar Mehta, APIO and Shri Basant Singh, Nodal APIO represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was represented by Shri Kamal Kishore who was heard through audio conferencing .
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant had inspected the 45 live registers on 12.8.09 and that
the Appellate Authority vide his order dt.14.12.09 had provided the required clarification. The
Appellant stated that he would like to know whether prior to 1980 live registers were being maintained
by Railways. He also pointed out the contradiction in the reply provided by Railway Board and DRM
Office, Jodhpur in information sought by him. He further requested for the name of the competent
authority who can include his name at this stage in the live register. He was however, informed by
the Respondent that before 1980 there was no concept of live register and that registers that were
maintained were muster rolls for the casual labour who were working at that time. With regard to the
contradiction in replies, the Respondent submitted that DRM, Jodhpur has taken action based on
circular No.9195 which was issued by the Railway Board in the year 1987 in which it has been clearly
mentioned that all those casual labourers who were discharged prior to 1.1.87 and wanted their
names included in the live register must do so by 31.3.87. According to the Respondents, from the
records it seems that the Appellant had not applied for inclusion of his name in the live register and
hence his name does not appear in it. With regard to the question relating to the competent authority
who can include the Appellant’s name in the live register at this stage, the Respondent submitted
that since the scheme no longer exists there is no official having the authority to include his name in
the live register now.
6. The Commission after hearing the submissions directs the PIO to inform the Appellantt about the
absence of any competent authority who can include his name in the live register at this stage and
also to provide clarification in respect of two contradictory replies received by the Appellant as
mentioned hereinabove. Information may be provided by 24 June, 2010.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Chandrakishore Upadhyaya
Street near the first bridge of Nahar
Quila Road Nagauri Gate
Kalal Colony
Jodhpur
2. The PIO
North Western Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Jodhpur Division
Jodhpur
3. The Appellate Authority
North Western Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Jodhpur Division
Jodhpur
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC