In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001922 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001936
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001934 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001952
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001935 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001953
Date of Hearing : October 19, 2011
Date of Decision : October 19, 2011
Parties: (Heard through videoconference)
Appellants
1. Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta (1922) 2. Shri Awadesh Kumar (1934)
C/o Shri Sudhir Kumar 820/II/307
Railway Quarter No. 127, A+B South Colony Andal, Post, Andal
12 No Colony, Post, Andal District Burdwan
District Burdwan Pin 713 321
Pin 713 321 West Bengal
West Bengal
3. Shri Santosh Kumar (1935) 4. Shri Soumyen Kundu (1936)
C/o Late Purna Chandra Ghosh C/o Shri Udai Shankar Mondla
& Sumitra Ghose, Ramprasad Pur Road Mondla Vila, South Bazar,
Tatul Bagan, Opp. Party Office, Andal District Burdwan
Post Andal, District Burdwan Pin 713 321
Pin 713 321 West Bengal
West Bengal
5. Shri Santosh Kumar Sinha (1952) 6. Shri Bipin Kumar (1953)
C/o Shri P K Singh Qtr. No. 498/94/95,
North Bazar, Near Hindi School, Damodar Colony Andal,
Post Andal, District Burdwan PO Andal
Pin 713 321 District Burdwan
West Bengal Pin 713 321
West Bengal
The Appellants were present.
Respondents
Eastern Railway
Asansol
Represented by: Shir A.K. Shukla, ADRM & Appellate Authority and Shri Avdesh Kumar, Sr. DPO & PIO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001922 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001936
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001934 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001952
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001935 File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001953
ORDER
Background
1. These 6 appealpetitions, filed by six different Appellants viz., Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Shri Awadesh
Kumar, Shri Santosh Kumar, Shri Soumyen Kundu, Shri Santosh Kumar Sinha and Shri Bipin Kuma,
relate to the Appellants’ six RTIapplications [dated 18.02.2011 (in 4 appeals) and 28.02.2011(in 2
appeals)], which they had filed with the PIO, Eastern Railway, Asansol. Through these RTIapplications,
the Appellants, interalia, wanted to know the reasons for deduction made in their basic pay after the
recommendations of the 6th pay Commission. They also requested for copies of their service books. In
response to these applications, the PIO furnished separate replies to the Appellants which contained
pointwise information and clarifications corresponding to the Appellants’ RTIqueries. The Appellants,
however, being dissatisfied with these replies of the PIO, filed their 1 stappeals before the Appellate
Authority. The AA decided these appeals through a common order dated 12.04.2011, holding that the
information supplied by the PIO is correct. The Appellant, aggrieved with the AA’s decision filed the
present appeals before the Commission requesting for the disclosure of complete information.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents informed the Commission that they have received total 58 RTI
applications on the same subject from different individuals and that the present 6 appeals are part of those
58 RTIapplications. The Appellants, on their part, stated that they have still not received the reasons
(para 1) they are looking for.
3. In the circumstances of the present case, it is considered best to allow the Appellants as well as all the
others , who had approached the PIO on the same issue, to inspect their respective files, dealing with the
subject matter of their RTIapplications. It is accordingly directed that the PIO, on a day, time and place to
be identified and intimated to the Appellants/Applicants (all 58 Applicants including the Appellants in the
instant case ) in advance, shall allow the Appellants (and the other RTIApplicants, who had approached
the PIO on the same issue) to inspect their respective files, dealing with the subject matter of their RTI
applications. The Appellants/Applicants, after the inspection, shall be entitled to receive attested
photocopies of documents, which they may select from the inspected records, on the payment of the
requisite fee i.e Rs. 2/ per page. This is to be completed within 4 weeks of receipt of this order.
4. Apart from the above, it is, in the interest of the Appellants, also directed that the Appellate Authority give
a personal hearing to all 58 RTIapplicants at the same time, in order to provide any further clarification
with regard to the information sought. The Appellate Authority will thereafter pass a speaking order
within 4 weeks of receipt of this order.
5. The Appeals are disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta
C/o Shri Sudhir Kumar
Railway Quarter No. 127, A+B
12 No Colony, Post, Andal
District Burdwan
Pin 713 321
West Bengal
2. Shri Awadesh Kumar
820/II/307
South Colony Andal, Post, Andal
District Burdwan
Pin 713 321
West Bengal
3. Shri Santosh Kumar
C/o Late Purna Chandra Ghosh
& Sumitra Ghose, Ramprasad Pur Road
Tatul Bagan, Opp. Party Office, Andal
Post Andal, District Burdwan
Pin 713 321
West Bengal
4. Shri Soumyen Kundu
C/o Shri Udai Shankar Mondla
Mondla Vila, South Bazar,
District Burdwan
Pin 713 321
West Bengal
5. Shri Santosh Kumar Sinha
C/o Shri P K Singh
North Bazar, Near Hindi School,
Post Andal, District Burdwan
Pin 713 321
West Bengal
6. Shri Bipin Kumar
Qtr. No. 498/94/95,
Damodar Colony Andal,
PO Andal
District Burdwan
Pin 713 321
West Bengal
7. The Appellate Authority & ADRM
Eastern Railway
Asansol
8. Public Information Officer &
Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager
Eastern Railway
Asansol
9. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant
may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTI
application, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate 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 may indicate, what information has not been provided.