In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001486
Date of Hearing : September 01, 2011
Date of Decision : September 01, 2011
Parties: (Heard through videoconference)
Appellant
Shri Sukhandan Prasad Kure
Maghavalya, Vidya Nagar,
Bilaspur
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
South East Central Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Personnel Branch, Bilaspur Division,
Bilaspur
Represented by : Shri S.N. Dubey, ADRM and Shri Mukesh Bahadur Singh, APIO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001486
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication dated 19.11.2010 with the PIO, South East Central Railway,
Bilaspur seeking certain information regarding the compassionate appointment of the wife of his
deceased son which, according to him, was incorrect as his son during his life period had been
socially separated from his wife. The PIO, on 09.01.2011, interalia informed the Applicant that that
there is no document available with them stating that they have been legally divorced. The
Applicant, thereafter, filed his 1stappeal with the Appellate Authority 09.02.2011 which the AA
decided on 09.03.2011 recording that the PIO has already furnished the information to the Appellant
on 09.01.2011. He (AA), however, offered the inspection of relevant file to the Appellant. The
Appellant thereafter filed the present appeal before the Commission on 18.05.2011 commenting on
the reply given by the PIO requesting for a copy of the letter written by the Welfare Inspector stating
that the deceased son and his wife had come to an out of court agreement and that they have not be
divorced.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents stated that they have given appointment to the wife of the
Appellant’s deceased son after the Family Court had dismissed the divorce case before it due to the
death of the son (husband of the appointee). They also cited the report of the Welfare Inspector
which makes a mention of a consensus between both the parties (the deceased son and his wife)
about not pursuing the divorce case. The Appellant, however, stuck to his point that the said
appointment of his daughter -inlaw is illegal as his deceased son had been socially separated from
the said appointee for some time before he passed away. He also, when asked, refused to inspect
the file dealing with the said compassionate appointment stating that he has already inspected the
same. The Respondents on their part were unable to produce a copy of the Welfare Inspector’s letter
since the same according to them is not traceable. They, however argued that the deceased son was
not legally separated from his wife at the time of his death. Hence the appointment was given to his
wife. The Appellant too admitted that they were not legally separated but insisted that they were
socially considered as separated and hence the appointment ought not to have been given to his
(son’s) wife.
3. I see no scope for any further disclosure in the matter in view of the fact that the Appellant has
admittedly inspected the relevant file and has been provided with copies of documents identified by
him. As for the copy of the letter of the Welfare Inspector, the same cannot be authorized for
disclosure since it is untraceable.
4. Appeal is therefore closed.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Sukhandan Prasad Kure
Maghavalya, Vidya Nagar,
Bilaspur
2. The Appellate Authority
South East Central Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Personnel Branch, Bilaspur Division,
Bilaspur
3. Public Information Officer
South East Central Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Personnel Branch, Bilaspur Division,
Bilaspur
4. Officer in charge, NIC