Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

M Krishnan Unni vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 27 December, 2022

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                 के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067


द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/RAILB/A/2022/605073/ MORLY-UM

Mr. M Krishnan Unni
                                                                ....अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                       VERSUS
                                         बनाम

CPIO
Nodal Officer (RTI Cell)
M/o Railways,
Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road
New Delhi-110001
                                                              प्रनतिािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing       :          16.12.2022
Date of Decision      :          27.12.2022

Date of RTI application                                             22.09.2021
CPIO's response                                                     Not on record
Date of the First Appeal                                            25.10.2021
First Appellate Authority's response                                24.11.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                25.01.2022

                                      ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points, as under:-

Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 24.11.2021 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: The appellant attended the hearing through VC. Respondent: The respondent Shri Jaya Kumar, Dy. Director, PC -VII, attended the hearing in person.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that no response was furnished to him by the CPIO. The Respondent present during the hearing stated that a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. The respondent further stated that a Grievance dated 23.05.2020 was registered by the appellant on the CPGRAM portal seeking the Railway Board's instructions on how the restriction of officiating pay under FR-35 should be implemented from 1989 in terms of Fundamental (3 -Amendment) Rules, 1989, and the same was disposed with observations that prior to 7-CPC, Charge Allowance was granted in Indian Railways to officers officiating on a higher post in administrative exigencies and it was in force till 30.06.2017. He said it was only from 01.07.2017 that grant of Charge Allowance has to be discontinued, as such a conscious decision has been taken by the Competent Authority after considering all aspects to adopt the instructions issued by DOP&T regarding restriction of officiating pay under FR-35 w.ef. 01.07.2017.

Further, the appellant again raised the issue vide application dated 11.12.2020. The policy aspects raised by him were again examined in depth vide Note 5 to 7, and it was concluded that the position earlier advised to Shri Unni holds good and a suitable reply was given to him vide letter dated 24.05.2021. Now, the letter dated 24.06.2021 again requested to extend guidelines on FR-35 w.r.t. ad-hoc promotions materialized between 1989 to 30.06.2017, he said and added that there was no need to give a fresh response Since the issue has already been examined and the policy aspects are very clear that in Railways the scheme of Charge Allowance was prevalent for officiating Adhoc promotions made in exigencies to higher grades till 30.06.2017 only and the present instructions on FR-35 cannot be implemented retrospectively. DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish correct and complete information on point no. 01 of the RTI application, to the Appellant, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित एवं सत्यापित प्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के. राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 27.12.2022