Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2010/000648
Dated: October 20, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri R. Subramanian
Name of Public Authority : Southern Railway, Chennai.
Background
1. The RTI application was filed by the Applicant on 21.12.09 with the PIO, Southern Railway, Chennai
wanting to know the reasons for not considering his total service of 36 years from 1.1.1954 to 31.7.90
as qualifying service for the payment of Pension and Gratuity benefits. He also prayed that the
authorities direct the Department of Personnel & Accounts to provide immediate relief and to notify
the reasons for abnormal delay which amounts to deficiency of service. The PIO replied on 27.1.10
providing detailed reply after verifying the Service Register of the Applicant , stating that the Applicant
is not eligible for the benefits sought by him. The PIO further stated that it is seen from the Applicant’s
service register that he was appointed as Ty. Porter with effect from 17.3.59 only. Hence qualifying
service is calculated in his case from the date of his appointment as Ty. Porter i.e., 17.3.59 and
settlement benefits had been arranged accordingly. Being aggrieved with this reply the Applicant filed
a complaint before the Commission stating that the service from 1.1.54 to 14.5.59 was not taken into
consideration as ” qualifying service” for purpose of paying terminal benefits of pension and gratuity
and seeking reasons for not doing so. .
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for October
20, 2010.
3. Shri A. Narayanan, Sr. DPO represented the Public Authority and was heard through video
conferencing.
4. The Applicant was present alongwith Mr. Baktavatsalam who represented him during the hearing.
Decision
5. During the hearing the complainant reiterated his contention as given in the appeal and requested
once again for the reason for not taking into consideration the total service period for purpose of
calculation of terminal benefits of Pension and Gratuity and the reason for not issuing fresh PPO
orders for the revised rate awarded by VI Central Pay Commission. The Respondent stated that the
PPO of the Complainant has been revised and had been sent to the Bank and also handed over a
copy of the PPO to the Complainant in the presence of the Commissioner.
6. The Commission on careful consideration of the appeal holds that the Complainant is simply
narrating his personal grievance and that he is not seeking any information. The relief he is seeking
in terms of issuance of orders by the Commission to the Public Authority falls outside the ambit of the
RTI Act. The Complainant is advised to approach an appropriate forum for redressal of his
grievance.
7. The Commission accordingly rejects the appeal and closes the case at the Commission’s enc.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri R. Subramanian
C/o Ekambaram
37, Perumal Koil Street
Vengal Post
Trivellore
2. The Public Information Officer
Southern Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Personnel Branch,
Chennai 600004
3. Officer Incharge, NIC