In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001789
CIC/AD/A/2010/001793
CIC/AD/A/2010/001796
CIC/AD/A/2010/001794
CIC/AD/A/2010/001795
Date of Hearing : January 19, 2011
Date of Decision : January 19, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Nachiketa
R/o Gehloton Ka Baas
Magra - Poonjala
Jodhpur
Rajasthan
The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Respondents
Northern Railway
Divisional Railway Manager's Office
Jodhpur Division
Jodhpur
Represented by : Shri A.K.Mehta, APIO, Shri Basant Singh, APO and Shri K.C.Bairwa, Sr.DSTE at
NIC Studio, Jodhpur
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decisions
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001789
CIC/AD/A/2010/001793
CIC/AD/A/2010/001796
CIC/AD/A/2010/001794
CIC/AD/A/2010/001795
ORDER
Background
CIC/AD/A/2010/001789
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.25.4.10 with the PIO, DRM Office, North Western Railway,
Jodhpur. He wanted to know under whose directions the payment of arrears was made before
fixation of pay and the copy of that order by which payment was mad. The PIO replied on 17.5.10
enclosing the letter dt.3.2.09 from the North Western Railway HQ directing them to pay the arrears
before 15.3.10. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.12.6.10 with the Appellate Authority stating that even
though the order dt.3.2.09 directs that payment be made before 15.3.10 he was paid 15 days later
and reiterated his request for the information. Shri G.N.Sharma, PIO replied on 30.7.10 on behalf of
the Appellate Authority enclosing the reply dt.27.7.10 furnished by the concerned officer who stated
that payment of arrears was made earlier due to the need to calculate IT returns before 31.3.10. Not
satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed his second appeal dt.26.9.10 before CIC.
CIC/AD/A/2010/001793
2. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.26.4.10 with the PIO, DRM Office, North Western Railway,
Jodhpur. He wanted to know under whose orders a sum of Rs.84/ was deducted from his salary
even though he had worked on 15.8.09. The PIO replied on 11.5.10 enclosing the reply furnished by
Sr.DSTE who vide his note dt.11.5.10 stated that though the amount was not paid due to an
inadvertent error , it was subsequently paid the next month. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.9.6.10
with the Appellate Authority seeking the name and designation of the officer who was responsible for
the error along with copy of the order for deduction of Rs.84/. Shri G.N.sharma, PIO replied on
15.6.10 on behalf of the Appellate Authority enclosing the information dt.13.7.10 furnished by
Sr.DSTE who gave only the designation of the official. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant
filed a second appeal dt.26.9.10 before CIC.
CIC/AD/A/2010/001796
3. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.26.4.10 with the PIO, DRM Office, North Western Railway,
Jodhpur. He wanted to know how many people were employed in the cadre of ESM(SM) I, II, III in
the test room. The PIO replied on 13.5.10 enclosing the information dt.13.5.10 furnished by Sr.DSTE
stating that nobody in the cadre of ESM (SM) I II and III is entitled to work in the test room and for
administrative reasons, two people whose names were also provided were working in the test room.
The Sr.DPO also provided the information on 7.5.10. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.9.6.10 with the
Appellate Authority stating that information provided is incomplete. The Appellate Authority replied on
16.7.10 providing further clarification. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second
appeal dt.26.9.10 before CIC.
CIC/AD/A/2010/001794
4. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.30.1.10 with the PIO, DRM Office, North Western Railway,
Jodhpur. He wanted to know how many people were employed in the cadre of ESM(SM) I, II, III and
MSM (SM) I, II and III and Helper Khalasi, Head Trolleyman and the name, designation and place of
posting. Shri Kailash Panwar, Sr.DPO replied on 4.3.10. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.4.4.10 with
the Appellate Authority stating that information provided is incomplete since no information has been
received from Sr.Section Engineer/Telecom/East. Shri G.N.Sharma, PIO replied on 12.7.10 on
behalf of the Appellate Authority enclosing the information dt.30.6.10 furnished by Shri Kailash
Panwar, Sr.DPO who invited the Applicant for inspection of records with regard to Personnel branch
and with regard to Sr.DSTE, he informed the Applicant that the information may be sought from
them. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.26.9.10 before CIC.
CIC/AD/A/2010/001795
5. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.26.4.10 with the PIO, DRM Office, North Western Railway,
Jodhpur. He wanted to know under whose orders, he was transferred in Raika Bagh and he wanted
the copy of that order. The PIO replied on 1.6.10 enclosing the information furnished by Sr.DSTE
who vide his note dt.31.5.10 enclosed a copy of the order. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.12.6.10
with the Appellate Authority stating that the order is incomplete and only the order from the Personnel
Branch is required. The Appellate Authority replied on 16.7.10 providing further clarifications. Being
aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.26.9.10 before CIC.
Decision
CIC/AD/A/2010/001789
6. The Commission on perusal of the documents is not clear as to what further information is required
by the Appellant. The Public Authority is therefore, under no obligation to provide any further
information to the Appellant . The appeal is dismissed and the case closed at the Commission’s
end.
CIC/AD/A/2010/001793
7. The Commission on perusal of the documents directs the PIO to provide the name of the officer
responsible for deducting inadvertently Rs.84/ (as designation had already been provided) so as to
reach the Appellant by 20.2..11 and the Appellant to submit a compliance report to the Commission
by 26.2.11.
CIC/AD/A/2010/001796
8. During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that the cadre list for the entire division was provided
to the Appellant containing complete information.
9. The Commission holds that there is no further obligation on the Public Authority to provide further
clarification. The appeal is dismissed and the case closed at the Commission’s end.
CIC/AD/A/2010/001794
10. During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that information was provided already in respect of
another RTI application corresponding to Case No.CIC/AD/A/2010/001796. The Commission therefore holds
that the Public Authority is therefore, under no obligation to provide further clarification. The appeal is
dismissed and the case closed at the Commission’s end.
CIC/AD/A/2010/001795
11. During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that the Appellant was not transferred but was only
shifted from night duty to day duty and that the Sr.DSTE has the discretionary power to issue such
orders and since there is no transfer, there is no role for the Personnel Branch to play in the shifting
as the Appellant is working under Sr.DSTE.
12. The Commission holds that complete information has been provided and accordingly dismisses the
appeal.
13. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Nachiketa
R/o Gehloton Ka Baas
Magra – Poonjala
Jodhpur
Rajasthan
2. The Public Information Officer
Northern Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Jodhpur Division
Jodhpur
3. The Appellate Authority
Northern Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Jodhpur Division
Jodhpur
4. Officer Incharge, NIC