{"id":92746,"date":"2011-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2"},"modified":"2017-08-07T20:13:54","modified_gmt":"2017-08-07T14:43:54","slug":"mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Kalpesh M Paravtiya vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Kalpesh M Paravtiya vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 August, 2011<\/div>\n
                      In\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission\u00a0\n                                                    at\n                                             New\u00a0Delhi\n\n\n1.           File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001120                 8.      File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001572\n2.           File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001566                 9.      File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001573\n3.           File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001567                 10.     File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001574\n4.           File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001568                 11.     File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001575\n5.           File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001569                 12.     File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001576\n6.           File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001570                 13.     File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001577\n7.           File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001571                 14.     File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001578\n\n\n\nDate\u00a0of\u00a0Hearing :\u00a0\u00a0August\u00a030,\u00a02011\n\nDate\u00a0of\u00a0Decision :\u00a0\u00a0August\u00a030,\u00a02011\n\n\n\nParties:\u00a0\u00a0(Heard\u00a0through\u00a0videoconference)\n\n\n\nAppellant\n\n\nShri\u00a0Kalpesh\u00a0M\u00a0Parvatiya\nH.No.\u00a07\/980,\u00a0Kajipura\u00a0Street,\nKatar\u00a0Gaam\u00a0Darwaja,\nSurat\u00a0395\u00a0003\nGujarat\u00a0\n\nThe\u00a0Appellant\u00a0was\u00a0present\u00a0at\u00a0NIC\u00a0VC\u00a0facility\u00a0at\u00a0Vadodara\n\nRespondents\n\n\nWestern\u00a0Railway\nOffice\u00a0of\u00a0Divisional\u00a0Railway\u00a0Manager\nPratapnagar,\u00a0Vadodara\u00a0Division,\nVadodara\n\nRepresented\u00a0by:\u00a0Shri\u00a0Praveen\u00a0Parmar,\u00a0ADRM,\u00a0Ms.\u00a0Preeti\u00a0Katyar,\u00a0Sr.\u00a0DPO\u00a0&\u00a0CPIO\u00a0(Personnel),\u00a0Shri\u00a0B.C.\u00a0\nSinha,\u00a0APO\u00a0and\u00a0Shri\u00a0Mirza,\u00a0DCM\u00a0&\u00a0PIO--\u00a0present\u00a0at\u00a0NIC\u00a0VC\u00a0facility\u00a0at\u00a0Vadodara\n                   Information\u00a0Commissioner     :\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Mrs.\u00a0Annapurna\u00a0Dixit\n___________________________________________________________________\n                         In\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission\u00a0\n                                                              at\n                                                      New\u00a0Delhi\n\n1.           File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001120                          8.             File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001572\n2.           File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001566                          9.             File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001573\n3.           File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001567                          10.            File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001574\n4.           File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001568                          11.            File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001575\n5.           File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001569                          12.            File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001576\n6.           File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001570                          13.            File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001577\n7.           File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001571                          14.            File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001578\n\n\n                                                           ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001120:\n<\/p>\n
Background<\/p>\n
1.      The \u00a0 Applicant \u00a0 filed \u00a0 an \u00a0 application \u00a0 dated \u00a0 05.08.2010 \u00a0 with \u00a0 the \u00a0 PIO, \u00a0 Western \u00a0 Railway, \u00a0 Vadodara,\u00a0<\/p>\n
        seeking \u00a0 permission \u00a0 for \u00a0 filing \u00a0 an \u00a0 appeal \u00a0 with \u00a0 the \u00a0 Appellate \u00a0 Authority \u00a0 \u00a0 with \u00a0 reference \u00a0 to \u00a0 a \u00a0 reply\u00a0<\/p>\n
        furnished\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0in\u00a0response\u00a0to\u00a0his\u00a0an\u00a0earlier\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0dated\u00a021.12.2008.\u00a0It\u00a0was\u00a0his\u00a0<\/p>\n
        case\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0could\u00a0not\u00a0timely\u00a0file\u00a0his\u00a01st\u00adappeal\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0AA\u00a0against\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0reply,\u00a0reason\u00a0for\u00a0which\u00a0he\u00a0<\/p>\n
        had\u00a0mentioned\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO,\u00a0on\u00a006.09.2010,\u00a0while\u00a0informing\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0<\/p>\n
        has\u00a0not\u00a0sought\u00a0any\u00a0information\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00adAct,\u00a0also\u00a0advised\u00a0him\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0may,\u00a0if\u00a0so\u00a0wishes,\u00a0file\u00a0a\u00a0<\/p>\n
        fresh \u00a0 application \u00a0 along \u00a0 with \u00a0 requisite \u00a0 fee \u00a0 for \u00a0 obtaining \u00a0 the \u00a0 information \u00a0 under \u00a0 the \u00a0 RTI\u00adAct. \u00a0 The\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Applicant\u00a0thereafter\u00a0filed\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0petition\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0requesting\u00a0for\u00a0necessary\u00a0action\u00a0<\/p>\n
        in\u00a0the\u00a0matter.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\nDecision<\/p>\n
2.      During\u00a0the\u00a0hearing,\u00a0the\u00a0Respondents\u00a0informed\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0is\u00a0having\u00a0certain\u00a0<\/p>\n
        personal\u00a0grievances\u00a0against\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0authority\u00a0which\u00a0are\u00a0at\u00a0present\u00a0being\u00a0looked\u00a0into\u00a0by\u00a0way\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0<\/p>\n
        separate\u00a0enquiry\u00a0[ordered\u00a0during\u00a0a\u00a0meeting\u00a0held\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0and\u00a0his\u00a0<\/p>\n
        area\u00a0Controlling\u00a0Officer]\u00a0at\u00a0the\u00a0level\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Controlling\u00a0Officer\u00a0.\u00a0 \u00a0In\u00a0so\u00a0far\u00a0as\u00a0the\u00a0dissemination\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
        information\u00a0is\u00a0concerned,\u00a0it\u00a0was\u00a0their\u00a0submission\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0has\u00a0not\u00a0sought\u00a0any\u00a0information\u00a0<\/p>\n
        under\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00adAct.\n<\/p>\n
 3.      I\u00a0am\u00a0entirely\u00a0in\u00a0agreement\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Respondents\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0has\u00a0not\u00a0sought\u00a0any\u00a0information\u00a0in\u00a0<\/p>\n
        his\u00a0application\u00a0dated\u00a005.08.2010;\u00a0rather\u00a0the\u00a0latter\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0even\u00a0construed\u00a0as\u00a0an\u00a0application\u00a0made\u00a0<\/p>\n
        under\u00a0Section\u00a06(1)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00adAct\u00a0as\u00a0it\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0accompanied\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0requisite\u00a0application\u00a0fee\u00a0of\u00a0Rs.\u00a0<\/p>\n
        10\/\u00ad.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.      In\u00a0view\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0above,\u00a0this\u00a0Appeal\u00a0is\u00a0directed\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0dismissed.<\/p>\n
File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001566:\n<\/p>\n
\nBackground<\/p>\n
5.      The\u00a0Applicant\u00a0filed\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0dated\u00a016.12.2008\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0Vadodara,\u00a0<\/p>\n
        seeking \u00a0 certain \u00a0 information \u00a0 about \u00a0 his \u00a0 pay \u00a0 fixation. \u00a0 The \u00a0 PIO, \u00a0 on \u00a0 28.01.2009, \u00a0 gave \u00a0 point\u00adwise\u00a0<\/p>\n
        reply\/clarification\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0along\u00a0with\u00a0copies\u00a0of\u00a0supporting\u00a0documents\u00a0wherever\u00a0required.\u00a0The\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Applicant,\u00a0however,\u00a0being\u00a0aggrieved\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0reply,\u00a0filed\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0petition\u00a0dated\u00a006.02.2011\u00a0<\/p>\n
        before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0requesting\u00a0for\u00a0necessary\u00a0action\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0matter.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Decision<\/p>\n
6.      During\u00a0the\u00a0hearing,\u00a0the\u00a0Respondents\u00a0informed\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0is\u00a0unhappy\u00a0with\u00a0<\/p>\n
        non\u00adpayment\u00a0of\u00a0certain\u00a0allowances\u00a0(i.e.\u00a0Dearness\u00a0allowance\u00a0,\u00a0House\u00a0Rent\u00a0Allowance\u00a0and\u00a0Dearness\u00a0<\/p>\n
        pay)\u00a0to\u00a0him,\u00a0which\u00a0as\u00a0per\u00a0Railway\u00a0Board\u00a0circular\u00a0dated\u00a016.10.1997–copy\u00a0of\u00a0which\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0given\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
        the\u00a0Appellant–are\u00a0not\u00a0payable\u00a0to\u00a0him.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.      After\u00a0going\u00a0through\u00a0the\u00a0records\u00a0and\u00a0upon\u00a0hearing\u00a0the\u00a0submissions,\u00a0I\u00a0am\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0view\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0required\u00a0<\/p>\n
        information\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0furnished\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0what\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0is\u00a0presently\u00a0seeking\u00a0is\u00a0<\/p>\n
        settlement\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0grievance\u00a0about\u00a0non\u00adpayment\u00a0of\u00a0certain\u00a0allowances\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0which\u00a0lies\u00a0beyond\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        purview\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00adAct.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.      In\u00a0view\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0above,\u00a0this\u00a0appeal\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0allowed.\u00a0Rejected.<\/p>\n
File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001567:\n<\/p>\n
\nBackground\n<\/p>\n
 9.            The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0through\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0dated\u00a016.12.2008,\u00a0filed\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0<\/p>\n
     Vadodara,\u00a0sought\u00a0to\u00a0know\u00a0a)\u00a0after\u00a0how\u00a0many\u00a0days\u00a0the\u00a0temporary\u00a0status\u00a0is\u00a0given\u00a0to\u00a0an\u00a0employee\u00a0and\u00a0\u00a0b)\u00a0when\u00a0<\/p>\n
     would \u00a0 he \u00a0 be \u00a0 given \u00a0 promotion \u00a0 under \u00a0 the \u00a0 ACP \u00a0 Rule. \u00a0 The \u00a0 PIO, \u00a0 on \u00a0 30.01.2009, \u00a0 gave \u00a0 the \u00a0 required\u00a0<\/p>\n
     clarification\/information\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant.\u00a0The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0however,\u00a0being\u00a0aggrieved\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO’s\u00a0reply,\u00a0filed\u00a0<\/p>\n
     the\u00a0present\u00a0petition\u00a0dated\u00a006.02.2011\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0requesting\u00a0for\u00a0necessary\u00a0action\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0matter.\u00a0<\/p>\n
     Decision<\/p>\n
     10.      The \u00a0 Appellant, \u00a0 during \u00a0 the \u00a0 hearing, \u00a0 stated \u00a0 that \u00a0 he \u00a0 has \u00a0 not \u00a0 received \u00a0 the \u00a0 benefits \u00a0 of \u00a0 ACP \u00a0 since\u00a0<\/p>\n
              01.07.1991and\u00a0that\u00a0therefore\u00a0wants\u00a0to\u00a0know\u00a0as\u00a0to\u00a0when\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0benefits\u00a0are\u00a0expected\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0given\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
              him.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0Respondents\u00a0apprised\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0the\u00a0position\u00a0of\u00a0Rules\u00a0dealing\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0grant\u00a0of\u00a0ACP.<\/p>\n
     11.      Since\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0was\u00a0still\u00a0not\u00a0very\u00a0clear\u00a0about\u00a0the\u00a0grant\u00a0of\u00a0ACP\u00a0to\u00a0him,\u00a0it\u00a0was,\u00a0in\u00a0order\u00a0to\u00a0help\u00a0him,\u00a0<\/p>\n
              considered \u00a0 worthwhile \u00a0 that \u00a0 he \u00a0 be \u00a0 provided \u00a0 with \u00a0 a \u00a0 clarification \u00a0 note \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 issue \u00a0 related \u00a0 to \u00a0 his\u00a0<\/p>\n
              promotions\u00a0and\u00a0any\u00a0benefits\u00a0due\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0under\u00a0ACP.\u00a0It\u00a0is\u00a0accordingly\u00a0directed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0within\u00a01\u00a0<\/p>\n
              week\u00a0of\u00a0receipt\u00a0of\u00a0this\u00a0order,\u00a0should\u00a0formally\u00a0issue\u00a0a\u00a0clarification\u00adnote\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0<\/p>\n
              mentioned\u00a0issue.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     12.      Appeal\u00a0is\u00a0disposed\u00a0of\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0direction.\n<\/p>\n
\n     File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001568:\n<\/p>\n
\n     Background<\/p>\n
     13.      The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0through\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0dated\u00a016.12.2008,\u00a0filed\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0<\/p>\n
              Vadodara,\u00a0enquired\u00a0about\u00a0non\u00adpayment\u00a0of\u00a0certain\u00a0“transfer\u00a0package\u00a0allowance”\u00a0to\u00a0him.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO,\u00a0on\u00a0<\/p>\n
              30.01.2009,\u00a0informed\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0benefit\u00a0of\u00a0composite\u00a0transfer\u00a0grant\u00a0[Vadodara\u00a0yard\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
              Anand]]\u00a0was\u00a0given\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0after\u00a0discussing\u00a0the\u00a0matter\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Secretary,\u00a0Divisional\u00a0Employee\u00a0Union,\u00a0<\/p>\n
              Vadodara. \u00a0 As \u00a0 regards \u00a0 non\u00adpayment \u00a0 of \u00a0 composite \u00a0 transfer \u00a0 grant \u00a0 in \u00a0 respect \u00a0 of \u00a0 his \u00a0 transfer \u00a0 from\u00a0<\/p>\n
              Bharuch\u00a0to\u00a0Kousamba\u00a0and\u00a0Kousamba\u00a0to\u00a0Bharuch,\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0informed\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0that\u00a0this\u00a0transfer\u00a0<\/p>\n
              was\u00a0done\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0basis\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0own\u00a0request\u00a0and\u00a0that,\u00a0therefore,\u00a0no\u00a0allowance\u00a0is\u00a0payable\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0regard.\u00a0<\/p>\n
              The \u00a0 Applicant, \u00a0 thereafter, \u00a0 being \u00a0 aggrieved \u00a0 with \u00a0 the \u00a0 PIO’s \u00a0 reply, \u00a0 filed \u00a0 the \u00a0 present \u00a0 petition \u00a0 dated\u00a0<\/p>\n
              06.02.2011\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0requesting\u00a0for\u00a0necessary\u00a0action\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0matter.\u00a0<\/p>\n
     Decision\n<\/p>\n
 14.     The\u00a0 Appellant,\u00a0during\u00a0 the\u00a0 hearing,\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Respondents\u00a0are\u00a0not\u00a0right\u00a0in\u00a0denying\u00a0him\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        benefit\u00a0of\u00a0composite\u00a0transfer\u00a0grant\u00a0from\u00a0Bharuch\u00a0to\u00a0Kousamba\u00a0and\u00a0Kousamba\u00a0to\u00a0Bharuch\u00a0because\u00a0<\/p>\n
        the\u00a0request\u00a0made\u00a0by\u00a0him\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0transfer\u00a0was\u00a0later\u00a0withdrawn\u00a0by\u00a0him\u00a0and\u00a0therefore\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0<\/p>\n
        considered\u00a0as\u00a0done\u00a0at\u00a0his\u00a0own\u00a0request.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15.     I\u00a0am\u00a0unable\u00a0to\u00a0grant\u00a0any\u00a0relief\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0as\u00a0the\u00a0type\u00a0of\u00a0demand\u00a0he\u00a0has\u00a0mentioned\u00a0herein\u00a0does\u00a0<\/p>\n
        not\u00a0come\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0purview\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00adAct.\u00a0He\u00a0has,\u00a0nonetheless,\u00a0other\u00a0channels\u00a0available\u00a0where\u00a0he\u00a0<\/p>\n
        could\u00a0raise\u00a0this\u00a0issue.\u00a0The\u00a0Respondents,\u00a0however,\u00a0are\u00a0directed\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0a\u00a0copy\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Rule\u00a0confirming\u00a0their\u00a0position\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0entitled\u00a0for\u00a0any\u00a0benefit\u00a0of\u00a0composite\u00a0transfer\u00a0<\/p>\n
        grant\u00a0for\u00a0his\u00a0transfer\u00a0from\u00a0Bharuch\u00a0to\u00a0Kousamba\u00a0and\u00a0Kousamba\u00a0to\u00a0Bharuch.\u00a0This\u00a0may\u00a0be\u00a0given\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
        the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0by\u00a015.09.2011.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.     Appeal\u00a0is\u00a0disposed\u00a0off\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0direction.\n<\/p>\n
\nFile\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001569:\n<\/p>\n
\nBackground<\/p>\n
17.     The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0through\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0dated\u00a016.12.2008,\u00a0filed\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Vadodara,\u00a0sought\u00a0certain\u00a0information\u00a0about\u00a0his\u00a0pay\u00adfixation\u00a0done\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0wake\u00a0of\u00a0recommendations\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
        the\u00a06th\u00a0 CPC.\u00a0It\u00a0is\u00a0his\u00a0belief\u00a0that\u00a0his\u00a0juniors\u00a0are\u00a0being\u00a0given\u00a0higher\u00a0pay\u00a0in\u00a0comparison\u00a0to\u00a0what\u00a0he\u00a0is\u00a0<\/p>\n
        being\u00a0given\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0authority.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0PIO,\u00a0on\u00a030.01.2009,\u00a0informed\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0work\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
        pay\u00adfixation\u00a0(after\u00a0the\u00a0recommendation\u00a0of\u00a06th\u00a0CPC)\u00a0is\u00a0still\u00a0going\u00a0on\u00a0\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0payment,\u00a0which\u00a0is\u00a0<\/p>\n
        presently\u00a0being\u00a0made\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0is\u00a0“temporary”.\u00a0The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0thereafter,\u00a0being\u00a0aggrieved\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO’s\u00a0<\/p>\n
        reply, \u00a0 filed \u00a0 the \u00a0 present \u00a0 petition \u00a0 dated \u00a0 06.02.2011 \u00a0 before \u00a0 the \u00a0 Commission \u00a0 alleging \u00a0 that \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Respondents\u00a0are\u00a0giving\u00a0wrong\u00a0information\u00a0in\u00a0order\u00a0to\u00a0hide\u00a0their\u00a0mistakes.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Decision<\/p>\n
18.     After\u00a0hearing\u00a0both\u00a0sides\u00a0and\u00a0on\u00a0perusing\u00a0the\u00a0records\u00a0and\u00a0also\u00a0after\u00a0noting\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0pay\u00a0fixation\u00a0has\u00a0<\/p>\n
        been\u00a0completed,\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0directed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0within\u00a01\u00a0week\u00a0of\u00a0receipt\u00a0of\u00a0this\u00a0order,\u00a0should\u00a0provide\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
        the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0a\u00a0copy\u00a0of\u00a0calculation\u00a0sheet\u00a0in\u00a0respect\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0pay\u00adfixation.\u00a0The\u00a0Appellant\u00a0may\u00a0also\u00a0like\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
        inspect\u00a0the\u00a0file\u00a0dealing\u00a0with\u00a0his\u00a0pay\u00adfixation\u00a0by\u00a0making\u00a0a\u00a0formal\u00a0request\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0within\u00a01\u00a0week\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
        receipt\u00a0of\u00a0this\u00a0order.\u00a0In\u00a0that\u00a0case,\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0within\u00a02\u00a0weeks\u00a0of\u00a0receipt\u00a0of\u00a0such\u00a0a\u00a0request\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0
\n         Appellant,\u00a0shall\u00a0allow\u00a0the\u00a0inspection\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0file\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant,\u00a0following\u00a0which\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0<\/p>\n
        shall\u00a0be\u00a0free\u00a0to\u00a0take\u00a0photocopies\u00a0of\u00a0identified\u00a0documents,\u00a0free\u00a0of\u00a0cost.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a019.    Appeal\u00a0is\u00a0disposed\u00a0of\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0direction.\n<\/p>\n
\nFile\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001570:\n<\/p>\n
\nBackground<\/p>\n
20.     The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0through\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0dated\u00a016.12.2008,\u00a0filed\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Vadodara, \u00a0 wanted \u00a0 to \u00a0 know\u00a0 as\u00a0 to\u00a0 how\u00a0many\u00a0times\u00a0(during\u00a001.07.1991\u00a0 to\u00a0 04.07.2003)\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0<\/p>\n
        authority\u00a0had\u00a0conducted\u00a0the\u00a0screening\u00a0test\u00a0for\u00a0regularising\u00a0their\u00a0temporary\u00a0staff.\u00a0He\u00a0also\u00a0wanted\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
        know\u00a0why\u00a0he\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0given\u00a0permanent\u00a0status\u00a0by\u00a0making\u00a0him\u00a0a\u00a0part\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0screening\u00a0test.\u00a0The\u00a0<\/p>\n
        PIO,\u00a0on\u00a030.01.2009,\u00a0inter\u00adalia\u00a0informed\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0authority\u00a0had\u00a0conducted\u00a0three\u00a0<\/p>\n
        screening \u00a0 tests \u00a0 during \u00a0 the \u00a0 period \u00a0 mentioned \u00a0 in \u00a0 his \u00a0 application. \u00a0 The \u00a0 Applicant, \u00a0 thereafter, \u00a0 being\u00a0<\/p>\n
        aggrieved\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO’s\u00a0reply,\u00a0filed\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0petition\u00a0dated\u00a006.02.2011\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0<\/p>\n
        stating\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0does\u00a0not\u00a0agree\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Respondent’s\u00a0version.<\/p>\n
Decision<\/p>\n
21.     During\u00a0the\u00a0hearing,\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Respondents\u00a0have\u00a0not\u00a0given\u00a0him\u00a0dates\u00a0on\u00a0which\u00a0<\/p>\n
        they\u00a0had\u00a0conducted\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0screening\u00a0tests.\u00a0The\u00a0Respondents\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0had\u00a0not\u00a0<\/p>\n
        asked\u00a0for\u00a0this\u00a0information\u00a0in\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00a0application.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
22.     It \u00a0 is \u00a0 noted\u00a0 that\u00a0 complete\u00a0 information\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0given\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0corresponding\u00a0to\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00ad<\/p>\n
        application\u00a0which\u00a0satisfies\u00a0the\u00a0disclosure\u00a0requirement\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0appeal.\u00a0It\u00a0is,\u00a0therefore,\u00a0directed\u00a0<\/p>\n
        that\u00a0there\u00a0shall\u00a0be\u00a0no\u00a0further\u00a0disclosure\u00a0obligation\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0Respondents\u00a0part\u00a0with\u00a0regard\u00a0to\u00a0this\u00a0appeal.\u00a0<\/p>\n
        The\u00a0Appellant\u00a0may\u00a0wish\u00a0to\u00a0file\u00a0a\u00a0fresh\u00a0RTI\u00a0application\u00a0for\u00a0additional\u00a0information.<\/p>\n
23.     Appeal\u00a0is\u00a0disposed\u00a0of\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0direction.\n<\/p>\n
\nFile\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001571:\n<\/p>\n
\nBackground<\/p>\n
24.     The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0through\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0dated\u00a016.12.2008,\u00a0filed\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Vadodara,\u00a0wanted\u00a0to\u00a0know\u00a0the\u00a0reasons\u00a0for\u00a0delay\u00a0in\u00a0giving\u00a0permanent\u00a0status\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0
\n         authority.\u00a0He\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0his\u00a0other\u00a07\u00a0colleagues\u00a0were\u00a0given\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0status\u00a0much\u00a0prior\u00a0to\u00a0him.\u00a0The\u00a0<\/p>\n
        PIO,\u00a0 on\u00a0 30.01.2009,\u00a0 inter\u00adalia\u00a0 informed\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0that\u00a0due\u00a0to\u00a0certain\u00a0anomalies\u00a0found\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        documents\u00a0 submitted\u00a0 by\u00a0 his\u00a0 serving\u00a0place\u00a0(construction\u00a0department)\u00a0to\u00a0them,\u00a0his\u00a0case\u00a0of\u00a0giving\u00a0<\/p>\n
        permanent\u00a0status\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0was\u00a0delayed.\u00a0The\u00a0permanent\u00a0status\u00a0therefore\u00a0was\u00a0given\u00a0one\u00a0year\u00a0after\u00a0it\u00a0<\/p>\n
        was\u00a0given\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0others.\u00a0The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0thereafter,\u00a0being\u00a0aggrieved\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO’s\u00a0reply,\u00a0filed\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        present\u00a0petition\u00a0dated\u00a006.02.2011\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0expressing\u00a0his\u00a0dissatisfaction\u00a0toward\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Respondents’\u00a0response\u00a0to\u00a0him.\n<\/p>\n
\nDecision<\/p>\n
25.     When\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0was\u00a0asked\u00a0during\u00a0the\u00a0hearing\u00a0to\u00a0inspect\u00a0the\u00a0file\u00a0dealing\u00a0with\u00a0his\u00a0regularization\u00a0<\/p>\n
        case\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0authority\u00a0so\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0could\u00a0himself\u00a0glean\u00a0from\u00a0there\u00a0any\u00a0further\u00a0 \u00a0reasons\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        delay\u00a0he\u00a0is\u00a0looking\u00a0for,\u00a0he\u00a0expressed\u00a0his\u00a0unwillingness\u00a0to\u00a0do\u00a0so\u00a0and\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0would\u00a0separately\u00a0<\/p>\n
        discuss\u00a0this\u00a0issue\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
26.     In\u00a0view\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0above,\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0held\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0completely\u00a0disclosed\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant.<\/p>\n
27.     Appeal\u00a0is\u00a0disposed\u00a0of\u00a0accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\nFile\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001572:\n<\/p>\n
\nBackground<\/p>\n
28.     The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0through\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0dated\u00a016.12.2008,\u00a0filed\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Vadodara,\u00a0wanted\u00a0to\u00a0know\u00a0whether\u00a0his\u00a0salary\u00a0amount\u00a0fixed\u00a0on\u00a004.07.2003\u00a0is\u00a0correct\u00a0or\u00a0not.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO,\u00a0<\/p>\n
        on\u00a030.01.2009,\u00a0replied\u00a0to\u00a0this\u00a0query\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0affirmative.\u00a0The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0thereafter,\u00a0filed\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0<\/p>\n
        petition\u00a0 dated\u00a0 06.02.2011 \u00a0 before\u00a0 the\u00a0 Commission\u00a0stating\u00a0that\u00a0 he\u00a0wants\u00a0more\u00a0 information\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0<\/p>\n
        regard.\n<\/p>\n
\nDecision<\/p>\n
29.     During\u00a0the\u00a0hearing,\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0wants\u00a0to\u00a0obtain\u00a0the\u00a0“Performa”\u00a0in\u00a0which\u00a0his\u00a0salary\u00a0<\/p>\n
        was\u00a0fixed.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
30.     It\u00a0is\u00a0noted\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0type\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0presently\u00a0wants\u00a0to\u00a0obtain\u00a0would\u00a0be\u00a0available\u00a0with\u00a0<\/p>\n
        the\u00a0Respondents\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0form\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0calculation\u00a0sheet.\u00a0It\u00a0is\u00a0accordingly\u00a0directed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0within\u00a01\u00a0
\n         week\u00a0of\u00a0receipt\u00a0of\u00a0this\u00a0order,\u00a0should\u00a0furnish\u00a0a\u00a0copy\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0calculation\u00a0sheet\u00a0related\u00a0to\u00a0his\u00a0pay\u00a0fixation,\u00a0<\/p>\n
        to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0in\u00a0respect\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0above\u00a0mentioned\u00a0pay\u00a0fixation.\u00a0<\/p>\n
31.     Appeal\u00a0is\u00a0disposed\u00a0of\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0direction.\n<\/p>\n
\nFile\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001573:\n<\/p>\n
\nBackground<\/p>\n
32.     The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0through\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0dated\u00a016.12.2008,\u00a0filed\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Vadodara,\u00a0wanted\u00a0to\u00a0know\u00a0as\u00a0to\u00a0why\u00a0he\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0considered\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0post\u00a0of\u00a0Assistant\u00a0Loco\u00a0Pilot.\u00a0He\u00a0<\/p>\n
        also\u00a0wanted\u00a0to\u00a0know\u00a0the\u00a0names\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0departments\u00a0which\u00a0are\u00a0included\u00a0in\u00a0Electric\u00a0(Gen)\u00a0department.\u00a0<\/p>\n
        The\u00a0PIO,\u00a0on\u00a030.01.2009,\u00a0informed\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0that\u00a0employees\u00a0of\u00a0S&T\u00a0department\u00a0(to\u00a0which\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Appellant\u00a0 belong)\u00a0 are\u00a0 not\u00a0 eligible\u00a0for\u00a0 \u00a0selection\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0post\u00a0of\u00a0AC\/DCL\u00a0Loco\u00a0Pilot\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0(TL)\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Lighting,\u00a0RAC\u00a0Workshop\u00a0PRTN\u00a0&\u00a0RSC\u00a0are\u00a0included\u00a0in\u00a0General\u00a0Electrical\u00a0department.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0<\/p>\n
        thereafter, \u00a0 being \u00a0 unhappy \u00a0 with \u00a0 this \u00a0 reply \u00a0 filed \u00a0 the \u00a0 present \u00a0 petition \u00a0 dated \u00a0 06.02.2011 \u00a0 before \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Commission\u00a0alleging\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0given\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0is\u00a0incorrect.<\/p>\n
Decision<\/p>\n
33.     Heard\u00a0submissions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
34.     I\u00a0see\u00a0no\u00a0infirmity\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0PIO’s\u00a0reply\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0which\u00a0is\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0point.\u00a0It\u00a0is,\u00a0however,\u00a0directed\u00a0that\u00a0a\u00a0<\/p>\n
        copy\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0circular\u00a0explaining\u00a0this\u00a0position\u00a0(para\u00a032)\u00a0be\u00a0provided\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0within\u00a02\u00a0weeks\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
        receipt\u00a0of\u00a0this\u00a0Order.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
35.     Appeal\u00a0is\u00a0disposed\u00a0of\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0direction.\n<\/p>\n
\nFile\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001574:\n<\/p>\n
\nBackground<\/p>\n
36.     The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0through\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0dated\u00a005.08.2010,\u00a0filed\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Vadodara,\u00a0sought\u00a0information\u00a0against\u00a03\u00a0items\u00a0which\u00a0mainly\u00a0related\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0rejection\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0application\u00a0<\/p>\n
        submitted\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0appointment\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0post\u00a0of\u00a0Loco\u00a0Pilot,\u00a0advertised\u00a0through\u00a0GDCI\u00a0notification.\u00a0The\u00a0<\/p>\n
        PIO,\u00a0 on\u00a0 16.09.2010,\u00a0 gave\u00a0 required\u00a0 information\u00a0 to\u00a0the\u00a0 Applicant.\u00a0 The\u00a0 Applicant,\u00a0 thereafter,\u00a0being\u00a0
\n         unhappy\u00a0with\u00a0this\u00a0reply\u00a0filed\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0petition\u00a0dated\u00a006.02.2011\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0requesting\u00a0<\/p>\n
        for\u00a0\u00a0necessary\u00a0action\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0matter.\n<\/p>\n
\nDecision<\/p>\n
37.     During\u00a0 the\u00a0hearing,\u00a0 the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0questioned\u00a0the\u00a0Respondents’\u00a0reply\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0by\u00a0which\u00a0they\u00a0have\u00a0<\/p>\n
        informed\u00a0him\u00a0that\u00a0Shri\u00a0Paresh\u00a0Joshi,\u00a0an\u00a0employee\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0authority,\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0an\u00a0employee\u00a0of\u00a0S&T\u00a0<\/p>\n
        department.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
38.     In\u00a0view\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0above,\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0directed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0should\u00a0re\u00adexamine\u00a0their\u00a0records\u00a0and\u00a0confirm\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Appellant\u00a0that\u00a0Shri\u00a0Parsh\u00a0Joshi\u00a0does\u00a0not\u00a0belong\u00a0to\u00a0S&T\u00a0department.\u00a0In\u00a0case,\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0reply\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Respondents\u00a0found\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0incorrect\u00a0after\u00a0re\u00adexamination\u00a0of\u00a0records,\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0is\u00a0then\u00a0required\u00a0to\u00a0give\u00a0<\/p>\n
        copies\u00a0of\u00a0documents\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0basis\u00a0of\u00a0which\u00a0he\u00a0gave\u00a0his\u00a0earlier\u00a0reply\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant.\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Information\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0provided\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0by\u00a020.09.2011.<\/p>\n
39.     Appeal\u00a0is\u00a0disposed\u00a0of\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0direction.\n<\/p>\n
\nFile\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001575:\n<\/p>\n
\nBackground<\/p>\n
40.     The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0through\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0dated\u00a005.08.2010,\u00a0filed\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Vadodara,\u00a0wanted\u00a0to\u00a0know\u00a0why\u00a0he\u00a0is\u00a0being\u00a0paid\u00a0less\u00a0salary\u00a0than\u00a0Shri\u00a0Mahboob\u00a0P.,\u00a0who\u00a0is\u00a0junior\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
        him.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO,\u00a0on\u00a015.09.2010,\u00a0informed\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0that\u00a0Shri\u00a0Mahboob\u00a0is\u00a0senior\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0they\u00a0<\/p>\n
        both \u00a0 are \u00a0 at \u00a0 present\u00a0 getting\u00a0 equal\u00a0 salary.\u00a0 The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0 being\u00a0 unhappy\u00a0with\u00a0 this\u00a0reply,\u00a0filed\u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        present\u00a0petition\u00a0dated\u00a006.02.2011\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0requesting\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0necessary\u00a0action\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        matter.\n<\/p>\n
\nDecision<\/p>\n
41.     Heard\u00a0submissions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
42.     It\u00a0is\u00a0directed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0shall\u00a0allow\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0to\u00a0inspect\u00a0the\u00a0file\u00a0dealing\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0pay\u00a0fixation\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Shri\u00a0Mehboob\u00a0P.\u00a0and\u00a0also\u00a0his\u00a0own\u00a0so\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0can\u00a0get\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0he\u00a0is\u00a0looking\u00a0for\u00a0from\u00a0<\/p>\n
        the\u00a0source\u00a0itself.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO,\u00a0to\u00a0carry\u00a0out\u00a0this\u00a0exercise,\u00a0shall\u00a0issue\u00a0a\u00a0notice\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0indicating\u00a0a\u00a0<\/p>\n
        date\u00a0and\u00a0time\u00a0for\u00a0inspection\u00a0in\u00a0advance.\u00a0This\u00a0is\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0completed\u00a0by\u00a026.09.2011.\n<\/p>\n
 43.     Appeal\u00a0is\u00a0disposed\u00a0of\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0direction.\n<\/p>\n
\nFile\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001576:\n<\/p>\n
\nBackground<\/p>\n
44.     The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0through\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0dated\u00a005.08.2010,\u00a0filed\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Vadodara, \u00a0 wanted \u00a0 to \u00a0 obtain \u00a0 certain \u00a0 information \u00a0 about \u00a0 his \u00a0 income\u00adtax \u00a0 returns. \u00a0 The \u00a0 PIO, \u00a0 on\u00a0<\/p>\n
        24.09.2010,\u00a0gave\u00a0point\u00adwise\u00a0reply\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant.\u00a0The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0being\u00a0unhappy\u00a0with\u00a0this\u00a0reply,\u00a0filed\u00a0<\/p>\n
        the\u00a0present\u00a0petition\u00a0dated\u00a006.02.2011\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0requesting\u00a0for\u00a0\u00a0necessary\u00a0action\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
        matter.\n<\/p>\n
\nDecision<\/p>\n
45.     Heard\u00a0submissions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
46.     It\u00a0is\u00a0noted\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0is\u00a0unhappy\u00a0with\u00a0some\u00a0calculation,\u00a0which\u00a0he\u00a0believes\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0wrong,\u00a0done\u00a0<\/p>\n
        by\u00a0the\u00a0Respondents\u00a0in\u00a0respect\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0income\u00a0tax\u00a0returns.\u00a0This\u00a0is\u00a0something\u00a0which\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0sorted\u00a0<\/p>\n
        out\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00adAct.\u00a0In\u00a0so\u00a0far\u00a0as\u00a0the\u00a0disclosure\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0is\u00a0concerned,\u00a0the\u00a0Respondents\u00a0have\u00a0<\/p>\n
        given\u00a0admissible\u00a0information\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
47.     In\u00a0view\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0above,\u00a0this\u00a0appeal\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0allowed.\u00a0Rejected.<\/p>\n
File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001577:\n<\/p>\n
\nBackground<\/p>\n
48.     The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0through\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0dated\u00a030.11.2008,\u00a0filed\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0<\/p>\n
        Vadodara,\u00a0sought\u00a0certain\u00a0information\u00a0about\u00a0the\u00a0differences\u00a0between\u00a0the\u00a0amount\u00a0of\u00a0salaries\u00a0being\u00a0<\/p>\n
        paid\u00a0to\u00a0his\u00a0 co\u00adworkers\u00a0 at\u00a0 Ahmedabad\u00a0and\u00a0him.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO,\u00a0on\u00a028.01.2009,\u00a0provided\u00a0the\u00a0 \u00a0required\u00a0<\/p>\n
        information\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0along\u00a0with\u00a0copies\u00a0of\u00a0relevant\u00a0documents.\u00a0The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0being\u00a0unhappy\u00a0<\/p>\n
        with\u00a0 this\u00a0reply,\u00a0filed\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0petition\u00a0dated\u00a006.02.2011\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0requesting\u00a0for\u00a0<\/p>\n
        necessary\u00a0action\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0matter.\n<\/p>\n
\nDecision<\/p>\n
49.     Heard\u00a0submissions.\n<\/p>\n
 50.      It\u00a0is\u00a0directed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0shall\u00a0allow\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0to\u00a0inspect\u00a0the\u00a0file\u00a0dealing\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0salary\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0co\u00ad<\/p>\n
         workers\u00a0at\u00a0Ahmedabad\u00a0(mentioned\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0application)\u00a0and\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0own\u00a0so\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0could\u00a0himself\u00a0<\/p>\n
         find\u00a0out\u00a0the\u00a0differences\u00a0he\u00a0is\u00a0talking\u00a0about.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO,\u00a0to\u00a0carry\u00a0out\u00a0this\u00a0exercise,\u00a0shall\u00a0issue\u00a0a\u00a0notice\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
         the \u00a0 Appellant \u00a0 indicating \u00a0 a \u00a0 date \u00a0 and\u00a0 time\u00a0 for\u00a0 inspection\u00a0 in\u00a0 advance.\u00a0 This\u00a0 is\u00a0 to \u00a0 be\u00a0 completed\u00a0 by\u00a0<\/p>\n
         26.09.2011.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
51.      Appeal\u00a0is\u00a0disposed\u00a0of\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0direction.\n<\/p>\n
\nFile\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001578:\n<\/p>\n
\nBackground<\/p>\n
52.      The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0through\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0dated\u00a030.11.2008,\u00a0filed\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0<\/p>\n
         Vadodara,\u00a0sought\u00a0certain\u00a0information\u00a0about\u00a0the\u00a0delayed\u00a0payment\u00a0of\u00a0arrears\u00a0on\u00a0personal\u00a0pay\u00a0to\u00a0him.\u00a0<\/p>\n
         The\u00a0PIO\u00a0replied\u00a0to\u00a0this\u00a0application\u00a0on\u00a005.02.2009.\u00a0The\u00a0Applicant,\u00a0being\u00a0unhappy\u00a0with\u00a0this\u00a0reply,\u00a0filed\u00a0<\/p>\n
         the\u00a0present\u00a0petition\u00a0dated\u00a006.02.2011\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0requesting\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0necessary\u00a0action\u00a0in\u00a0<\/p>\n
         the\u00a0matter.\n<\/p>\n
\nDecision<\/p>\n
53.      Heard\u00a0submissions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
54.      Like\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0previous\u00a0case,\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0appeal\u00a0also\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0directed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0shall\u00a0allow\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
         inspect\u00a0the\u00a0file\u00a0dealing\u00a0with\u00a0his\u00a0arrears\u00a0payment\u00a0so\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0could\u00a0himself\u00a0find\u00a0out\u00a0further\u00a0reasons\u00a0for\u00a0<\/p>\n
         delay\u00a0in\u00a0making\u00a0said\u00a0payment\u00a0to\u00a0him.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO,\u00a0to\u00a0carry\u00a0out\u00a0this\u00a0exercise,\u00a0shall\u00a0issue\u00a0a\u00a0notice\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
         Appellant\u00a0indicating\u00a0a\u00a0date\u00a0and\u00a0time\u00a0for\u00a0inspection\u00a0in\u00a0advance.\u00a0This\u00a0is\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0completed\u00a0by\u00a026.09.2011.<\/p>\n
55.      Appeal\u00a0is\u00a0disposed\u00a0of\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0direction.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                        (Annapurna\u00a0Dixit)
\n                                                                                               Information\u00a0Commissioner
\nAuthenticated\u00a0true\u00a0copy\u00a0<\/p>\n
(G.Subramanian)
\nDeputy\u00a0Registrar\u00a0<\/p>\n
Cc:\n<\/p>\n
 1.   Shri\u00a0Kalpesh\u00a0M\u00a0Parvatiya
\n     H.No.\u00a07\/980,\u00a0Kajipura\u00a0Street,
\n     Katar\u00a0Gaam\u00a0Darwaja,
\n     Surat\u00a0395\u00a0003
\n     Gujarat\u00a0<\/p>\n
2.   The\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n     Western\u00a0Railway
\n     Office\u00a0of\u00a0Divisional\u00a0Railway\u00a0Manager
\n     Pratapnagar,\u00a0Vadodara\u00a0Division,
\n     Vadodara<\/p>\n
3.   Public\u00a0Information\u00a0Officer\u00a0
\n     Western\u00a0Railway
\n     Office\u00a0of\u00a0Divisional\u00a0Railway\u00a0Manager
\n     Pratapnagar,\u00a0Vadodara\u00a0Division,
\n     Vadodara<\/p>\n
4.   Officer\u00a0in\u00a0charge,\u00a0NIC
\n Note:\u00a0In\u00a0case,\u00a0the\u00a0Commission’s\u00a0above\u00a0directives\u00a0have\u00a0not\u00a0been\u00a0complied\u00a0with\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Respondents,\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0
\nmay \u00a0 file \u00a0 a \u00a0 formal \u00a0 complaint \u00a0 with \u00a0 the\u00a0 Commission \u00a0 under\u00a0 Section \u00a0 18(1) \u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0 RTI\u00adAct,\u00a0 giving \u00a0 (1) \u00a0 copy \u00a0 of \u00a0 RTI\u00ad
\napplication, \u00a0 (2) \u00a0 copy \u00a0 of \u00a0 PIO’s \u00a0 reply, \u00a0 (3) \u00a0 copy \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 decision \u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0 first \u00a0 Appellate \u00a0 Authority, \u00a0 (4) \u00a0 copy\u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0
\nCommission’s\u00a0decision,\u00a0and\u00a0(5)\u00a0any\u00a0other\u00a0documents\u00a0which\u00a0he\/she\u00a0considers\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0necessary\u00a0for\u00a0deciding\u00a0the\u00a0
\ncomplaint.\u00a0In\u00a0the\u00a0prayer,\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0may\u00a0indicate,\u00a0what\u00a0information\u00a0has\u00a0not\u00a0been\u00a0provided.\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Kalpesh M Paravtiya vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 August, 2011 In\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission\u00a0 at New\u00a0Delhi 1. File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001120 8. File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001572 2. File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001566 9. File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001573 3. File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001567 10. File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001574 4. File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001568 11. File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001575 5. File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001569 12. File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001576 6. File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001570 13. File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001577 7. File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001571 14. File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AD\/A\/2011\/001578 Date\u00a0of\u00a0Hearing :\u00a0\u00a0August\u00a030,\u00a02011 Date\u00a0of\u00a0Decision :\u00a0\u00a0August\u00a030,\u00a02011 Parties:\u00a0\u00a0(Heard\u00a0through\u00a0videoconference) Appellant Shri\u00a0Kalpesh\u00a0M\u00a0Parvatiya H.No.\u00a07\/980,\u00a0Kajipura\u00a0Street, Katar\u00a0Gaam\u00a0Darwaja, Surat\u00a0395\u00a0003 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92746","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Kalpesh M Paravtiya vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Kalpesh M Paravtiya vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-07T14:43:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Kalpesh M Paravtiya vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-07T14:43:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2\"},\"wordCount\":3000,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2\",\"name\":\"Mr.Kalpesh M Paravtiya vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-07T14:43:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Kalpesh M Paravtiya vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.Kalpesh M Paravtiya vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Kalpesh M Paravtiya vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-07T14:43:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Kalpesh M Paravtiya vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-07T14:43:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2"},"wordCount":3000,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2","name":"Mr.Kalpesh M Paravtiya vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-07T14:43:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kalpesh-m-paravtiya-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-august-2011-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Kalpesh M Paravtiya vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92746","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=92746"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92746\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92746"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92746"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92746"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}