Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2010/000376
CIC/AD/C/2009/001209
Dated August 25, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Ms.Prasanni Devi
Name of the Public Authority : Northern Railway HQ
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.19.7.09 with the PIO, Northern Railway HQ seeking the
following information:
i) how DRM office failed to give reply of his applications dt.15.1.09, 31.3.09 and 7.4.09. A
photocopy of their letters to be provided if replied by them.
ii) how and why family pension was not provided whereas all documents asked by DRM office
have been submitted to them Please intimate what kind of discrepancy arising to grant family
pension and as to why intimation has not been provided to avoid discrepancy since long time. A
photocopy of their letter to be provided if they have intimated so.
iii) her entitlement of family pension has not been released to any one else.
The CPIO transferred the RTI application to DRM Office, New Delhi on 27.7.09. On not receiving any
reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.19.1.10 before CIC while requesting for the family pension .
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for August 25,
2010.
3. Shri Mohar Singh, PIO & Sr.DMM, Shri Rakesh Tyagi, DGM/Law, Shri Sanjay Giridhar, APO/Bills,
Shri Jagpal Singh, OS and Shri N.N.Kalia, DMS represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondents submitted that the Complainant’s grievance relates to grant of family pension as
she claims to be the wife of Late Shri Kirpal Singh. He added that at the time of his retirement Shri
Kirpal Singh had filled in his pension papers wherein he had given the details of his family members
in Form6 and had declared Smt.Darshana Devi as his wife. Accordingly, the PPO was issued
showing the name of Smt. Darshna Devi as the person eligible for receipt of family pension. He
further added that Smt.Darshana Devi had expired on 20.12.86 and Shri Kirpal Singh received his
regular pension till his death on 11.2.99. After the death of Shri Kirpal Singh, Smt. Prasanni Devi had
made a representation for grant of family pension claiming to be the second wife of Shri Kirpal Singh.
The Respondents Submitted that the case was not considered on the fact that as per Hindu Marriage
Act 1955, at the time of marriage between Hindu husband and wife both should not have more than
one living husband/wife. Further as per information available with Public Authority, Shri Kirpal Singh
at the time of retirement had not mentioned the Complainant’s name in the details of the family
submitted by him to the office for the purpose of family pension.
6. The Commission after hearing the submissions, while holding that the relief being sought by the
Appellant from the Commission falls outside the ambit of RTI Act, directs the PIO to provide the
attested copy of Form – 6 submitted by Shri Kirpal Singh to the office , besides the details submitted
by him at the time of his retirement, both indicating the absence of the name of the Complainant, by
25.9.10 and the Complainant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 1.10.10.
7. The Commission directs the PIO to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/ per day (Maximum
`25000) should not be imposed upon him for not responding to the RTI application within the
stipulated time period as prescribed in the RTI Act.. He is directed to submit his written response to
the Commission by 25.9.10.
8. The Commission ordered accordingly.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Ms.Prasanni Devi
W/o Late Shri Kripal Singh
Vill & PO – Tapovan
Tehri Garhwal
Uttarakhand
2. The PIO
Northern Railway
Headquarters Office
Baroda House
New Delhi
3. Officer incharge, NIC