CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000851/3569
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000851
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Srikandan N. Iyer
32, Narihari Park Society,
Danteswar, Pratapnagar,
Baroda-04.
Respondent : Mr. P.K. Kulshresth
Sr. DPO & CPIO-BRC
Western Railway,
Divisional Office,
Vadodara-04
RTI application filed on : 11/12/2008
PIO replied : 13/01/2009
First appeal filed on : 15/02/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 23/03/2009
Second Appeal received on : 22/04/2009
Information sought:
The Appellant in his RTI has said that he has shouldered the responsibility of the post CTNL
BRC in higher grade, which become vacant after retirement of Mr. M.V.Gera and continue to
officiate from the same post while he had not been promoted to the same post. So he now
wants officiating allowance for which he had requested several times to the concerned
authority in the past and has asked following information:
a) Copy of the remarks made by officials on the file (operational and personal) after
submitting application for shouldering the responsibility.
b) Copy of WRMS dealing particularly along with detailed remarks of the then SRDM-
BRC Shri Santosh Kumar Jha, who is responsible to sanction the allowance.
c) The reason for delay in payment of officiating allowance for shouldering higher
responsibility, even after sanction of operating officer.
d) When will be the same paid-time limit?
The PIO’s Reply:
The PIO replied to the appellant that after examination of the appellant’s file it was found that
his case was 18 years old and such record were not traceable and said that on availability of
record case will be examined and will be replied.
The First Appellant Authority’s Order:
The First Appellant Authority ordered, “With reference to your appeal under RTI Act 2005, it
is advised that your case has been examined in detail and replied accordingly.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Srikandan N. Iyer
Respondent: Mr. P.K. Kulshresth, CPIO
The PIO states that the information relates to the year 1990 to 1995. The files of
this category are weeded out after 10 year and are not in existence. Hence he is
unable to give the records.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information is not available since the file had been weeded out.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
4 June 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(GJ)