In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000972
Heard through Video Conferencing
Date of Hearing : August 3, 2011
Date of Decision : August 3, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri A K B Lakshmanan
10, Rajaram Salai
K K Nagar
Trichy,
Tamil Nadu.
Applicant was not present.
Respondent(s)
Chittaranjan Locomotice Works
Chittaranjan
Distt - Burdwan - 713 331
(West Bengal)
Represented by : Shri K P Vaid, PIO/Dy.CPO
Shri A K Sinha, CLA
Shri A Chakravorthy, Welfare Inspector
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000972
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated 11.10.2010 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, Chittaranjan
Locomotive Works, Chittaranjan, seeking the information against the following four points.
a) Was the interest payment of Rs 1895/ for his delayed DCRG based not based on the above
railway board’s order?
b) Us there any other railway board’s order that says, it is enough to pay interest on delayed DCRG
from the date of its announcement and not from the date of retirement? If yes, specify such
Railway Board’s Order number and date.
c) For an erstwhile employee of CLW, if he needs any redressal in respect of manner in
calculating/quantifying interest on delayed DCRG , is there any authority other an DCPO(W) &
CPIO, CLW? If yes please specify such authority.
d) If the manner in calculating/quantifying interest on delayed DCRG shows pure negligence and
lack of understanding of the suffering of a pensioner resulting in mental agony apart from loss of
monetary benefits, which officer is held accountable for erroneous calculation/quantification, if
applicable.
The PIO replied on 15.11.2010 enclosing the information provided by Sr.Personnel Officer. The
PIO again replied on 13.12.2010 providing further clarification. Not satisfied with these replies the
Applicant filed his first appeal on 28.1.11. The Appellate authority in his reply dated 3.2.11 stated
that information has been provided by Dy.CPO(W) & CPIO vide his letters dated 15.11.10 &
13.12.10. The Applicant then filed his second appeal before the Commission stating that DCRG is
normally sanctioned and given as soon as the incumbent leaves service. He had written to CEO &
GM of CLW for giving him the arrears of interest for the delayed period of DCRG (from 1964 to 2008)
with compound interest as per orders of Railway Board dated 6..11.2008. He requested that a sum
of Rs 1,21,342.32/ be paid to him after deducting the interest payment of Rs 1895/.
Decision.
2. During the hearing the Respondent explained to the Commission the actual situation and also
informed the Commission that the General Manager in response to the representation filed by the
Applicant on 3.3.11 had replied on 7.3.11 informing the Applicant about his non eligibility for
retirement benefits to him from the year 1964 when he took technical resignation from the railways.
The PIO further added that the non eligibility is based on the letter dated 21.1.1966 as available in
the Master circular no. 33. The Commission after hearing the Respondent is of the opinion that the
Appe;;ant has already been provided the information . Even so, a copy of the letter dated 21.1.1966
may once again be furnished to the Appellant by 5th September 2011.
3. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
1. Shri A K B Lakshmanan
10, Rajaram Salai
K K Nagar
Trichy,
Tamil Nadu.
2. The Public Information Officer
Chittaranjan Locomotice Works
Chittaranjan
Distt – Burdwan – 713 331
(West Bengal)
3. The Appellate Authority
Chittaranjan Locomotice Works
Chittaranjan
Distt – Burdwan – 713 331
(West Bengal)
4. Officer in charge, 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