In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
1. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001120 8. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001572
2. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001566 9. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001573
3. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001567 10. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001574
4. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001568 11. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001575
5. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001569 12. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001576
6. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001570 13. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001577
7. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001571 14. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001578
Date of Hearing : August 30, 2011
Date of Decision : August 30, 2011
Parties: (Heard through videoconference)
Appellant
Shri Kalpesh M Parvatiya
H.No. 7/980, Kajipura Street,
Katar Gaam Darwaja,
Surat 395 003
Gujarat
The Appellant was present at NIC VC facility at Vadodara
Respondents
Western Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Pratapnagar, Vadodara Division,
Vadodara
Represented by: Shri Praveen Parmar, ADRM, Ms. Preeti Katyar, Sr. DPO & CPIO (Personnel), Shri B.C.
Sinha, APO and Shri Mirza, DCM & PIO-- present at NIC VC facility at Vadodara
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
1. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001120 8. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001572
2. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001566 9. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001573
3. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001567 10. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001574
4. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001568 11. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001575
5. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001569 12. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001576
6. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001570 13. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001577
7. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001571 14. File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001578
ORDER
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001120:
Background
1. The Applicant filed an application dated 05.08.2010 with the PIO, Western Railway, Vadodara,
seeking permission for filing an appeal with the Appellate Authority with reference to a reply
furnished to him by the PIO in response to his an earlier RTIapplication dated 21.12.2008. It was his
case that he could not timely file his 1stappeal with the AA against the said reply, reason for which he
had mentioned in this RTIapplication. The PIO, on 06.09.2010, while informing the Applicant that he
has not sought any information under the RTIAct, also advised him that he may, if so wishes, file a
fresh application along with requisite fee for obtaining the information under the RTIAct. The
Applicant thereafter filed the present petition before the Commission requesting for necessary action
in the matter.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents informed the Commission that the Appellant is having certain
personal grievances against the public authority which are at present being looked into by way of a
separate enquiry [ordered during a meeting held by the Appellate Authority with the Appellant and his
area Controlling Officer] at the level of the Controlling Officer . In so far as the dissemination of
information is concerned, it was their submission that the Appellant has not sought any information
under the RTIAct.
3. I am entirely in agreement with the Respondents that the Appellant has not sought any information in
his application dated 05.08.2010; rather the latter cannot be even construed as an application made
under Section 6(1) of the RTIAct as it was not accompanied by the requisite application fee of Rs.
10/.
4. In view of the above, this Appeal is directed to be dismissed.
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001566:
Background
5. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication dated 16.12.2008 with the PIO, Western Railway, Vadodara,
seeking certain information about his pay fixation. The PIO, on 28.01.2009, gave pointwise
reply/clarification to the Applicant along with copies of supporting documents wherever required. The
Applicant, however, being aggrieved with the said reply, filed the present petition dated 06.02.2011
before the Commission requesting for necessary action in the matter.
Decision
6. During the hearing, the Respondents informed the Commission that the Appellant is unhappy with
nonpayment of certain allowances (i.e. Dearness allowance , House Rent Allowance and Dearness
pay) to him, which as per Railway Board circular dated 16.10.1997–copy of which has been given to
the Appellant–are not payable to him.
7. After going through the records and upon hearing the submissions, I am of the view that the required
information has been furnished to the Appellant and that what the Appellant is presently seeking is
settlement of his grievance about nonpayment of certain allowances to him which lies beyond the
purview of the RTIAct.
8. In view of the above, this appeal cannot be allowed. Rejected.
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001567:
Background
9. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 16.12.2008, filed with the PIO, Western Railway,
Vadodara, sought to know a) after how many days the temporary status is given to an employee and b) when
would he be given promotion under the ACP Rule. The PIO, on 30.01.2009, gave the required
clarification/information to the Applicant. The Applicant, however, being aggrieved with the PIO’s reply, filed
the present petition dated 06.02.2011 before the Commission requesting for necessary action in the matter.
Decision
10. The Appellant, during the hearing, stated that he has not received the benefits of ACP since
01.07.1991and that therefore wants to know as to when the said benefits are expected to be given to
him. The Respondents apprised the Appellant the position of Rules dealing with the grant of ACP.
11. Since the Appellant was still not very clear about the grant of ACP to him, it was, in order to help him,
considered worthwhile that he be provided with a clarification note on the issue related to his
promotions and any benefits due to him under ACP. It is accordingly directed that the PIO, within 1
week of receipt of this order, should formally issue a clarificationnote to the Appellant on the above
mentioned issue.
12. Appeal is disposed of with the above direction.
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001568:
Background
13. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 16.12.2008, filed with the PIO, Western Railway,
Vadodara, enquired about nonpayment of certain “transfer package allowance” to him. The PIO, on
30.01.2009, informed the Applicant that the benefit of composite transfer grant [Vadodara yard to
Anand]] was given to him after discussing the matter with the Secretary, Divisional Employee Union,
Vadodara. As regards nonpayment of composite transfer grant in respect of his transfer from
Bharuch to Kousamba and Kousamba to Bharuch, the PIO informed the Applicant that this transfer
was done on the basis of his own request and that, therefore, no allowance is payable in this regard.
The Applicant, thereafter, being aggrieved with the PIO’s reply, filed the present petition dated
06.02.2011 before the Commission requesting for necessary action in the matter.
Decision
14. The Appellant, during the hearing, stated that the Respondents are not right in denying him the
benefit of composite transfer grant from Bharuch to Kousamba and Kousamba to Bharuch because
the request made by him for the said transfer was later withdrawn by him and therefore cannot be
considered as done at his own request.
15. I am unable to grant any relief to the Appellant as the type of demand he has mentioned herein does
not come under the purview of the RTIAct. He has, nonetheless, other channels available where he
could raise this issue. The Respondents, however, are directed to provide to the Appellant a copy of
Rule confirming their position that the Appellant is not entitled for any benefit of composite transfer
grant for his transfer from Bharuch to Kousamba and Kousamba to Bharuch. This may be given to
the Appellant by 15.09.2011.
16. Appeal is disposed off with the above direction.
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001569:
Background
17. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 16.12.2008, filed with the PIO, Western Railway,
Vadodara, sought certain information about his payfixation done in the wake of recommendations of
the 6th CPC. It is his belief that his juniors are being given higher pay in comparison to what he is
being given by the public authority. The PIO, on 30.01.2009, informed the Applicant that the work of
payfixation (after the recommendation of 6th CPC) is still going on and that the payment, which is
presently being made to him is “temporary”. The Applicant, thereafter, being aggrieved with the PIO’s
reply, filed the present petition dated 06.02.2011 before the Commission alleging that the
Respondents are giving wrong information in order to hide their mistakes.
Decision
18. After hearing both sides and on perusing the records and also after noting that the pay fixation has
been completed, it is directed that the PIO, within 1 week of receipt of this order, should provide to
the Appellant a copy of calculation sheet in respect of his payfixation. The Appellant may also like to
inspect the file dealing with his payfixation by making a formal request to the PIO within 1 week of
receipt of this order. In that case, the PIO, within 2 weeks of receipt of such a request from the
Appellant, shall allow the inspection of the said file to the Appellant, following which the Appellant
shall be free to take photocopies of identified documents, free of cost.
19. Appeal is disposed of with the above direction.
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001570:
Background
20. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 16.12.2008, filed with the PIO, Western Railway,
Vadodara, wanted to know as to how many times (during 01.07.1991 to 04.07.2003) the public
authority had conducted the screening test for regularising their temporary staff. He also wanted to
know why he was not given permanent status by making him a part of the said screening test. The
PIO, on 30.01.2009, interalia informed the Applicant that the public authority had conducted three
screening tests during the period mentioned in his application. The Applicant, thereafter, being
aggrieved with the PIO’s reply, filed the present petition dated 06.02.2011 before the Commission
stating that he does not agree with the Respondent’s version.
Decision
21. During the hearing, the Appellant stated that the Respondents have not given him dates on which
they had conducted the said screening tests. The Respondents stated that the Appellant had not
asked for this information in his RTI application.
22. It is noted that complete information has been given to the Appellant corresponding to his RTI
application which satisfies the disclosure requirement in the present appeal. It is, therefore, directed
that there shall be no further disclosure obligation on the Respondents part with regard to this appeal.
The Appellant may wish to file a fresh RTI application for additional information.
23. Appeal is disposed of with the above direction.
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001571:
Background
24. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 16.12.2008, filed with the PIO, Western Railway,
Vadodara, wanted to know the reasons for delay in giving permanent status to him in the public
authority. He stated that his other 7 colleagues were given the said status much prior to him. The
PIO, on 30.01.2009, interalia informed the Applicant that due to certain anomalies found in the
documents submitted by his serving place (construction department) to them, his case of giving
permanent status to him was delayed. The permanent status therefore was given one year after it
was given to the others. The Applicant, thereafter, being aggrieved with the PIO’s reply, filed the
present petition dated 06.02.2011 before the Commission expressing his dissatisfaction toward the
Respondents’ response to him.
Decision
25. When the Appellant was asked during the hearing to inspect the file dealing with his regularization
case in the public authority so that he could himself glean from there any further reasons for the
delay he is looking for, he expressed his unwillingness to do so and stated that he would separately
discuss this issue with the Respondents.
26. In view of the above, it is held that the information has been completely disclosed to the Appellant.
27. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001572:
Background
28. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 16.12.2008, filed with the PIO, Western Railway,
Vadodara, wanted to know whether his salary amount fixed on 04.07.2003 is correct or not. The PIO,
on 30.01.2009, replied to this query in the affirmative. The Applicant, thereafter, filed the present
petition dated 06.02.2011 before the Commission stating that he wants more information in this
regard.
Decision
29. During the hearing, the Appellant stated that he wants to obtain the “Performa” in which his salary
was fixed.
30. It is noted that the type of information the Appellant presently wants to obtain would be available with
the Respondents in the form of the calculation sheet. It is accordingly directed that the PIO, within 1
week of receipt of this order, should furnish a copy of the calculation sheet related to his pay fixation,
to the Appellant in respect of his above mentioned pay fixation.
31. Appeal is disposed of with the above direction.
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001573:
Background
32. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 16.12.2008, filed with the PIO, Western Railway,
Vadodara, wanted to know as to why he was not considered for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. He
also wanted to know the names of the departments which are included in Electric (Gen) department.
The PIO, on 30.01.2009, informed the Applicant that employees of S&T department (to which the
Appellant belong) are not eligible for selection to the post of AC/DCL Loco Pilot and that (TL)
Lighting, RAC Workshop PRTN & RSC are included in General Electrical department. The Applicant,
thereafter, being unhappy with this reply filed the present petition dated 06.02.2011 before the
Commission alleging that the information given by the PIO is incorrect.
Decision
33. Heard submissions.
34. I see no infirmity in the PIO’s reply to the Appellant which is to the point. It is, however, directed that a
copy of the circular explaining this position (para 32) be provided to the Appellant within 2 weeks of
receipt of this Order.
35. Appeal is disposed of with the above direction.
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001574:
Background
36. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 05.08.2010, filed with the PIO, Western Railway,
Vadodara, sought information against 3 items which mainly related to the rejection of his application
submitted for the appointment to the post of Loco Pilot, advertised through GDCI notification. The
PIO, on 16.09.2010, gave required information to the Applicant. The Applicant, thereafter, being
unhappy with this reply filed the present petition dated 06.02.2011 before the Commission requesting
for necessary action in the matter.
Decision
37. During the hearing, the Appellant questioned the Respondents’ reply to him by which they have
informed him that Shri Paresh Joshi, an employee of the public authority, is not an employee of S&T
department.
38. In view of the above, it is directed that the PIO should reexamine their records and confirm to the
Appellant that Shri Parsh Joshi does not belong to S&T department. In case, the said reply of the
Respondents found to be incorrect after reexamination of records, the PIO is then required to give
copies of documents to the Appellant on the basis of which he gave his earlier reply to the Appellant.
Information to be provided to the Appellant by 20.09.2011.
39. Appeal is disposed of with the above direction.
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001575:
Background
40. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 05.08.2010, filed with the PIO, Western Railway,
Vadodara, wanted to know why he is being paid less salary than Shri Mahboob P., who is junior to
him. The PIO, on 15.09.2010, informed the Applicant that Shri Mahboob is senior to him and that they
both are at present getting equal salary. The Applicant, being unhappy with this reply, filed the
present petition dated 06.02.2011 before the Commission requesting for the necessary action in the
matter.
Decision
41. Heard submissions.
42. It is directed that the PIO shall allow the Appellant to inspect the file dealing with the pay fixation of
Shri Mehboob P. and also his own so that the Appellant can get the information he is looking for from
the source itself. The PIO, to carry out this exercise, shall issue a notice to the Appellant indicating a
date and time for inspection in advance. This is to be completed by 26.09.2011.
43. Appeal is disposed of with the above direction.
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001576:
Background
44. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 05.08.2010, filed with the PIO, Western Railway,
Vadodara, wanted to obtain certain information about his incometax returns. The PIO, on
24.09.2010, gave pointwise reply to the Applicant. The Applicant, being unhappy with this reply, filed
the present petition dated 06.02.2011 before the Commission requesting for necessary action in the
matter.
Decision
45. Heard submissions.
46. It is noted that the Appellant is unhappy with some calculation, which he believes to be wrong, done
by the Respondents in respect of his income tax returns. This is something which cannot be sorted
out under the RTIAct. In so far as the disclosure of information is concerned, the Respondents have
given admissible information to the Appellant.
47. In view of the above, this appeal cannot be allowed. Rejected.
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001577:
Background
48. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 30.11.2008, filed with the PIO, Western Railway,
Vadodara, sought certain information about the differences between the amount of salaries being
paid to his coworkers at Ahmedabad and him. The PIO, on 28.01.2009, provided the required
information to the Applicant along with copies of relevant documents. The Applicant, being unhappy
with this reply, filed the present petition dated 06.02.2011 before the Commission requesting for
necessary action in the matter.
Decision
49. Heard submissions.
50. It is directed that the PIO shall allow the Appellant to inspect the file dealing with the salary of his co
workers at Ahmedabad (mentioned in the RTI application) and of his own so that he could himself
find out the differences he is talking about. The PIO, to carry out this exercise, shall issue a notice to
the Appellant indicating a date and time for inspection in advance. This is to be completed by
26.09.2011.
51. Appeal is disposed of with the above direction.
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001578:
Background
52. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 30.11.2008, filed with the PIO, Western Railway,
Vadodara, sought certain information about the delayed payment of arrears on personal pay to him.
The PIO replied to this application on 05.02.2009. The Applicant, being unhappy with this reply, filed
the present petition dated 06.02.2011 before the Commission requesting for the necessary action in
the matter.
Decision
53. Heard submissions.
54. Like in the previous case, in this appeal also it is directed that the PIO shall allow the Appellant to
inspect the file dealing with his arrears payment so that he could himself find out further reasons for
delay in making said payment to him. The PIO, to carry out this exercise, shall issue a notice to the
Appellant indicating a date and time for inspection in advance. This is to be completed by 26.09.2011.
55. Appeal is disposed of with the above direction.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Kalpesh M Parvatiya
H.No. 7/980, Kajipura Street,
Katar Gaam Darwaja,
Surat 395 003
Gujarat
2. The Appellate Authority
Western Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Pratapnagar, Vadodara Division,
Vadodara
3. Public Information Officer
Western Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Pratapnagar, Vadodara Division,
Vadodara
4. 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.