`CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00328 dated 4-3-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Abhishek;
Respondent: Min. of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Decision Announced 30.10.'09
File
By two applications both of 7.12.2007 appellant Shri Anand of Boring
Canal Road, Patna applied to Shri V.K. Tirkey, CPIO, DOPT seeking the
following information:
A
1. "Please tell me that on which date the attached letter was
sent to the concerned office.
2. What daily action was taken on that letter after its receipt?
3. At which level the decision was to be taken. Please give
the detail of the decision and also the names, designation
and phone numbers of the officers who took the decision.
4. If no action was taken on that then how long and at which
level it was kept pending. Give the name and designation
of the concerned officer.
5. After the receipt of this letter, how many letters of this
type were considered and decision taken on them. Give
the full detail of all decisions.
6. If no action has been taken on this letter than what is the
provision of penalty for that.
7. If any adverse action is taken on the attached letter then
whether the action will be taken on the concerned officer
or not. Please give the detail of each.
8. When and where the appeal can be made for such
matters?"
B
"1. After the division of Bihar and Jharkhand in the year
2000, what is the purpose of continuing the cadre division
of government servants till 2007?
2. Till now how many government servants have been
transferred to Jharkhand and how many of them have
joined so far.
3. How many government servants are there whose
services are being used in their respective States even
after their transfer?
4. Whose services have been kept in the State of their
choice after reconsideration of their allotment? Please give
the names, designations and present State of those who
1
are working there, and give the reason for reconsideration
of their cadre and what justification was given.
5. For which government officers of Bihar/Jharkhand the
recommendations were made for reconsideration of their
cadre allotment. Please supply the decision/order of the
DOPT (SR Division) for each of the case.
6. When and where the appeal can be made for such
matters?"
.
To this Shri Anand received a response from Shri V.K. Tirkey through
two letters both dated 18-3-08 as follows:
A
“1. The attached letter was diarised on 27-6-07 under diary No.
312.
2 & 3: Regarding this letter it is submitted that such a letter was
earlier received from Shri Atul Kumar Sinha, DS, Bihar Govt.
on which action was taken and conveyed to you by our letter
of 16-8-07 so there was no need to take further action on
your letter. The decision was taken at the level of DS (SR),
GOI.
4. The decision was already taken in your case before your
letter dt. 13-3-07 was received and you were accordingly
informed.
5. This is not possible. This information is not in public interest,
rather it will unnecessarily prolong the already pending
cases.
6-7 No answer is required because decision has already been
conveyed to you before your letter reached us.
B
“1. Undersigned is not competent in this matter.
2 to 5 : This is elaborate information. The information sought is
not available with the undersigned. They do not concern
with Government of India. So you can sought (sic)
information from the different departments of State
Government.
However, on not having received a response to his initial application till
that date Shri Anand had moved an appeal before Appellate Authority cum Dy.
Secretary (SR) Min. of Personnel pleading that “even after expiry of more
than statutory 30-35 days, I have not received any information so far.” To this
Shri Anand received a response on 15-2-2008 informing him that the
applications dated 7-12-07 had not been received in the Department.
Consequently Shri Abhishek, Member of Project Coordination Committee,
JAWAB of Patna has complained to us as follows:
2
“The applicant is still waiting to be informed when above 80 days
have passed and the applicant in ignorance of the whereabouts
of these two RTI applications has made the first appeal before
the Appellate Authority as per he had mentioned in the RTI
Application (annexure-5).”
It is subsequent to this that, through two letters of 18-3-08 Shri V.K.
Tirkey of DOPT has sent his replies that we have quoted above. In response
to our appeal notice Shri V. Peddanna, DS, DOPT in his letter of 7-9-09 has
submitted as below:
“As per the scheme of allocation of employees, in connection
with the reorganization states, once the option exercised by the
employee for a State, it cannot be changed subsequently. The
grievance of the appellant pertains to revision of his allocation
from Jharkhand to Bihar. Since he was allocated to Jharkhand
state as per his option, revision of allocation of Shri Anand from
Jharkhand the State of Bihar cannot be accepted under the
reorganization scheme.”
However, with regard to delay Shri Peddanna submitted that the CPIO
has no control on this process. This is indeed the case since the application
seems to have reached the CPIO only with the notice of the complaint issued
by us to which he has replied promptly.
DECISION NOTICE
The fault in the present case lies squarely with the GPO, Patna who
despite receiving two applications on 7-12-07 has forwarded these only on 28-
12-07 i.e. 21 days later. Similarly, although as pointed out by Shri Abhishek
the application specifically mentioned the officer to whom they were
addressed. Under Secretary Shri G. Subramanian of the Central Information
Commission has forwarded them to Shri D.C. Sharma, thus leading to non
receipt of the application in the DOPT. There has, therefore, been a failure in
delivery initially and specifically at the level of GPO, Patna. This matter will,
therefore, be brought to the notice of Secretary, Post to ensure that remedial
measures are taken in dealing with the RTI Application so that such a
situation is not allowed to recur. The Registry of this Commission is also
cautioned that in disposal of RTI applications, even in a case of misdirection
such as the present one, due diligence be exercised in so doing to ensure that
3
the application reaches the intended destination. Since we have received no
petition representing against information provided subsequent to the supply of
information by CPIO Shri Tirkey, we do not concern ourselves with the meits
of this response. This appeal must with the above observations be considered
disposed of.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
30-10-2009
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
30-10-2009
4