Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000829
Dated : August 23, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri Navin Kumar
Name of the Public Authority : East Central Railway, Mughalsarai
Background
1. The RTI application was filed by the Applicant dated 15.9.09 with the PIO, EC Railway, Mughalsarai
seeking information related to grant of his Casual Leave from 21.3.05 to 22.3.05 and on 19.3.05
against 17 points including reasons for rejecting his TA claim for April, 2006 had and for not paying
him his salary for 19.6.07. The PIO replied on 7.10.09 providing point wise information. He also
stated that TA Journal of April 2006 was duly checked by them and was found to be incorrect.
Accordingly it had been returned to the Applicant for necessary correction. Not satisfied with this
reply, the Applicant filed his first appeal on 7.12.09 stating that replies given against point 14 are
contradictory to each other and against point 57 he has documentary proof of being present for the
second half and for having submitted a CL application for the first half on 24.3.05 & 28.3.09. He also
stated that information against para 10 & 11 is false. He provided further comments on the reply
provided by the PIO. The Appellate Authority replied on 11.1.10 once again providing the required
clarification and informing the Appellant that the decision of not sanctioning leave was taken by the
Controlling officer in charge and that the justification of the decision taken is a matter of grievance.
He provided clarification against all the 17 points in his reply while dismissing the appeal on the
ground that they are all grievances and cannot be resolved through RTI. He also pointed out that in
2008 the Appellant had sought the same information regarding deduction and nonpayment of
salary/TA vide RTI application dated 25.9.08 and that the appeal was dismissed vide a decision in
case No.CIC/SG/A/2009/000853/3574 dated 4.6.09 on the ground that these grievances cannot be
resolved through RTI. In yet another case heard by the Commission on 17.12.09 in which the
Appellant had sought the same information vide application dated 6.9.09, the Commission vide its
decision order 17.12.09 had decided that available information had been provided to the Appellant
and accordingly had disposed of the appeal. Still not satisfied with this reponse, the Applicant filed
a second appeal before the Commission, stating that in para 1, the PIO had denied receiving the CL
application and in para 3 of the same letter application was regretted by Mr. Mishra, also vide item
No.3 in the CIC decision, the PIO has given different reasons during the hearing on 4.6.09 and in his
reply dated 8.10.09.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for August 23,
2010.
3. Shri Pawan Kumar, PIO and Shri R.K. Agrawal, Appellate Authority represented the Public Authority
and were present for the hearing at the Commission.
4. The Applicant was present during the hearing and was heard through video conferencing.
Decision
5. During the hearing the Appellant wanted to know why the PIO had denied having received the CL
application and in para 3 of the same letter had contradicted himself by saying that the CL was
regretted by Mr. Mishra. It was pointed out to the Appellant reply “No” by the PIO against point 1
referred to the date 19.3.05 since the application had been submitted by the Appellant on 28.3.05.
hence information provided was not incorrect. The Appellant maintained that the PIO had denied
having received the application for grant of CL. At this stage, the Respondent once again highlighted
the fact that the Appellant had sought the same information earlier regarding deduction and non
payment of salary/TA vide RTI application dated 25.9.08 and that the appeal was dismissed vide a
decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/000853/3574 dated 4.6.09 on the ground that these grievances cannot
be resolved through RTI. Also in yet another case heard by the Commission on 17.12.09 in which
the Appellant had sought the same information vide application dated 6.9.09, the Commission vide
its decision dated 17.12.09 had decided that available information had been provided to the Appellant
and accordingly had disposed of the appeal.
6. Since the information had already been furnished to the Appellant several times including in the
instant case, the Commission accordingly rejects the appeal while warning the Appellant that no
further appeal in respect of the subject matter in the instant case would be entertained by the
Commission in future and accordingly closes the case at the Commission’s end.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Navin Kumar
Section Engineer
TMC, Plant Depot.
EC Railway
Mughalsarai 232101
2. The PIO
East Central Railway
O/o the Dy. Chief Engineer/TMC
Plant Depot
Mughalsarai
3. The Appellate Authority
East Central Railway
O/o the Dy. Chief Engineer/TMC
Plant Depot
Mughalsarai
4. Officer Incharge, NIC