In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001145
Date of Hearing : August 2, 2011
Date of Decision : August 2, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Roshanlal Patel
H.No. 158/1K, Rajruppur
Allahabad
UP.
Applicant was not present.
Respondent(s)
Ministry of Railway
EDPC1 & PIO - VII
Railway Board
Rail Bhawan
New Delhi.
Represented by : Shri N P Singh, M/o Railways
Ms. Sharda Jain,.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001145
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated 9.7.2010 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, Ministry of Railways,
Railway Board, New Delhi seeking copies of directions of Railway Board in connection with
implementation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ms.Anuradha Mukherjee with
respect to Paras 13.7, 14 and 15 regarding Interseseniority. The PIO replied on 23.7.2010
enclosing the information against 5 points provided by the Dy.Director, Pay Commission. Not satisfied
with this reply the Applicant filed his first appeal on 26.11.2010 stating that he has not been provided
the required documents against point 1 to 4 and that documents provided against point 5 are wrong
and false. On not receiving any reply from the Appellate Authority the Applicant filed his second
appeal before the Commission seeking information once again and stating that he has not asked for
any advice or suggestion.
Decision.
2. During the hearing the Respondent submitted that as such there are no separate particular or
specific directions issued by the Railway Board with regard to implementation of paras 13.7, 14 of
the Supreme Court Judgment. With regard to para 15 of the Judgment also there is no such
information available in the records as sought by the Appellant. on records. As for point 5 it has been
noted that the information has been provided to the Appellant.
3. The Commission accordingly directs the PIO to formally inform the Appellant in writing about the non
availability of specific/particular directions as sought by the Appellant in points 1, 2,3 and 4 of the RTI
Application. The amount of Rs 40/ received from the Appellant may be returned to him since the
information provided to him is not to the point.
4. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc
1. Shri Roshanlal Patel
H.No. 158/1K, Rajruppur
Allahabad
UP.
2. The Public Information Officer
Ministry of Railway
EDPC1 & PIOVII
Railway Board
Rail Bhawan
New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority
Ministry of Railway
Advisor (IR) & AAVII
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan
New Delhi.
4. Officer in charge, NIC.
.
In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, giving
(1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellant Authority, (4) copy
of the Commission’s decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding
the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided