In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001761
Date of Hearing : January 20, 2011
Date of Decision : January 20, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
R.K.Roy
Janki Niwas Road No.2,
Dwerikepuri, Hanuman Nagar,
Patna 800 020
The Appellant was absent.
Respondents
East Central Railway
Office of General Manager,
Hajipur 844 101
Represented by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Dy. CPO and Ms. Garima Srivastava, Dy.CPO.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
The Commission directs the CPIO to supply the information.
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001761
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 03.05.2010, solicited information against 6 items (a
to f) from the CPIO, East Central Railway related to classification/categories of family members of
Railway Servant in connection with privilege passes. The CPIO, on 21.06.2010, gave pointwise
information to Applicant. The Applicant, being dissatisfied with the CPIO’s reply, filed his 1stappeal
with the Appellate Authority (AA) on 23.07.2010 stating that the CPIO had furnished incorrect
information with regard to Item No. 2 (i.e. “Widowed daughters provided they are dependent on the
Railway Servant (whether Dependent relative or Family member)” of his RTIapplication. The AA, in
his decision dated 27.08.2010, cited a Memorandum issued by Ministry of Personnel Public
Grievances & Pensions Department of Pension & Pensioner’s Welfare which clarified that the
“Unmarried/Widowed/Divorced daughter, upto the date of marriage/remarriage or till she starts
earning whichever is earliest is covered in the definition of family for the purpose of eligibility for
family pension and not for issuing pass.”
2. The Appellant has now approached the Commission in 2 ndappeal stating that “the CPIO has
incorrectly stated that widow daughters may be treated as dependent relative whereas it is clear from
Rule 2 of the Railway servant (Pass) Rules, 1986 that the widowed daughter has been included in
the list of family members” He has also complained against AA for supporting the CPIO’s reply and
unnecessarily citing definition of family members for family pension.
Decision
3. During the hearing, the Respondents stated that they had inadvertently misinterpreted the Rule in
respect of Unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter in their reply to the Appellant, and, that the correct
information is now available with them and that he is ready to provide the same to the Appellant.
They regretted having committed the above mistake while trying to interpret the rules.
4. In view of the above, the Commission directs the CPIO to supply the correct information to the
Appellant within 2 weeks of the receipt of this order.
5. The appeal disposed of with the above direction.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. R.K.Roy
Janki Niwas Road No.2,
Dwerikepuri, Hanuman Nagar,
Patna 800 020
2. The Appellate Authority
East Central Railway,
Office of General Manager,
Hajipur 844 101
3. Public Information Officer,
East Central Railway,
Office of General Manager,
Hajipur 844 101
4. Officer Incharge, NIC