Central Information Commission
H. S. Guleria vs Department Of Posts on 29 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/134932+
CIC/POSTS/A/2024/134827+
CIC/POSTS/A/2024/134975
H. S. Guleria ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Department of Posts, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 24.04.2024 FA : 20.06.2024 SA : 20.10.2024
CPIO : 01.05.2024 FAO : 22.07.2024 Hearing : 25.08.2025
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Decision: 29.08.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1) Number Gramin Dak Sewaks appointed with lowest slab of TRCA in each Division of HP Circle since 2018.Page 1 of 5
2) Number of proposal for revision of TRCA of GDS as per work load submitted by the competent Authorities of each Division for revision since 2018.
3) Number of such proposals accepted by the competent authorities for revision and number of proposals rejected.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
With regard to your RTI application, it is to inform that no such compiled information is maintained in this GDS branch of undersigned CPIO. However, your RTI application is being transferred to the Establishment branch of the Circle Office and all Divisions in HP Circle, for furnishing the requisite information, if any.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.07.2024 stated that:
In view of the above, it has been observed that the information sought by the Appellant from the CPIOs cannot be provided as the information sought is not available in the material/compiled form as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, information cannot be provided.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.10.2024.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision:
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Sanjay Kumar, Assistant Director (Mandi) & M.L. Sharma, Assistant Director (Shimla) attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had falsely denied the information sought in the RTI applications on the pretext that the same was not available Page 2 of 5 in material form, whereas similar information was supplied by four other CPIOs concerning other Circles.
7. The respondent (CPIO from Mandi) while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought indefinite and voluminous information regarding each Division under Himachal Pradesh Circle containing 433 post offices. However, such data of employees/Gramin Dak Sevaks was not maintained at their end. Further, compilation of such data for the purpose of responding to the instant RTI request(s) would amount to creation of data. Nonetheless, the exercise would disproportionately divert public resources. He further relied upon their latest written submissions dated 18.08.2025, reproduced hereunder:
"In this connection, it is submitted that to provide information to the appellant, this office need to search 239 establishment files in which the proposal for revision of TRCA in r/o GDS staff are being dealt. No other records are available in this office from which the asked information on point no. 2 & 3 by the appellant could be provided. Since to compile this information from each and every file is time consuming and lengthy process and also require additional manpower to create this information, hence the same could not be provided please."
The CPIO from Shimla Division made submissions on similar lines that the data concerning 514 Post offices falling under their jurisdiction was not maintained in due course of business, hence, disclosure of such information is exempted under Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that in addition to the FAA's observations that the information sought in the RTI applications is beyond the scope of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, the respondent (CPIOs) have supplemented through their oral as well as written submissions that the information sought for is voluminous in nature and is not available in compiled form. The plea taken by the respondent under Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act is found reasonable. In this regard, the appellant's attention is also drawn towards Page 3 of 5 the observations passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 497 reproduced hereunder:-
"67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace; tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising' information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Further, the CPIOs cannot be compelled to take a misroute in deviation of the mandate provided under the RTI Act and compile or collate data in the instant appeals, merely on the appellant's reliance upon an unsubstantiated precedent of other CPIO(s) having acted otherwise. The Commission finds no scope for further intervention in the matters. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 29.08.2025 Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO O/o. The Chief Postmaster General, H. P. Circle, APG & CPIO, Department Of Posts, Shimla-171009
2. The CPIO O/o. The Chief Postmaster General, H. P. Circle, AD & CPIO, (ESTT.,) Department Of Posts, Shimla-171009
3. The CPIO O/o. The Chief Postmaster General, H. P. Circle, CPIO, RTI Cell, Department Of Posts, Shimla-171009
4. H. S. Guleria Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)