In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001519
Date of Hearing : January 25, 2011
Date of Decision : January 25, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Krishankumar Singh
101, Somvansham
R.J.Nagar
Fulpada Road
Virar East,
Thane
The Applicant was present at NIC Studio, Mumbai.
Respondents
Western Railway
Divisional Railway Manager's Office
Mumbai Central
Mumbai 400 008
Represented by : Ms.Rekha Yadav, PIO & Sr.DPO and Shri A.K.Jha, Appellate Authority at NIC
Studio, Mumbai
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001519
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.5.3.10 with the PIO, DRM Office, Western Railway, Mumbai.
He stated that he is working in HBCDTS and that despite the Order of the Court, the attendant
benefits have not been given to him even after 3 years after the judgment. He added that in this
connection, he had lodged a complaint and that no response was received by him. Besides this he
also sought information relating to his seniority and pay fixation. On not receiving any reply, the
Applicant filed an appeal dt.23.4.10 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the
information. Shri Anil Kumar Jha, Appellate Authority replied on 2.6.10 stating that information as
available in material form can be provided and that Applicant has sought answers to questions
prefixed with ‘why’, ‘what’, ‘when’, ‘where’ etc. Being aggrieved with the reply, he Applicant filed a
second appeal dt.10.8.10 before CIC.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that he is only in knowing whether seniority is one of the
components of the attendant benefits mentioned para 1 haereinabove. Ms.Rekha Yadav, Respondent PIO
submitted that though the Appellant had not sought this information in his RTI application she is willing to hold
a personal hearing with the Appellant and provide the required clarification.
3. In view of the Respondent’s assurance that the Appellant’s grievance will be looked into, the
Commission holds that there is no further obligation on the part of the PIO, to provide any further
information and accordingly closes the case at the Commission’s end.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Krishankumar Singh
101, Somvansham
R.J.Nagar
Fulpada Road
Virar East,
Thane
2. The Public Information Officer
Western Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Mumbai Central
Mumbai 400 008
3. The Appellate Authority
Western Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Mumbai Central
Mumbai 400 008
4. Officer Incharge, NIC