Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Bappaditta Ghosh vs Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 21 August, 2025

                             के ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/ERAIL/A/2024/108639

Bappaditta Ghosh                                         .....अपीलकता/Appellant



                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


PIO,
Office of the Divisional
Railway Manager, Eastern
Railway, Howrah Division, DRM
Building, Howrah - 711101                             .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    30.07.2025
Date of Decision                    :    20.08.2025

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    22.11.2023
CPIO replied on                     :    Not on record
First appeal filed on               :    15.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order   :    31.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    20.03.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 22.11.2023 seeking the following information:

"Ref: My 1" acknowledged appeal dated 23/03/2019 & its subsequent joint acknowledged appeal dated 17/02/2020 & 06/03/2020. (Both three copies are enclosed) As per main theme & connotation of the above mentioned three appeals under reference it is lucidly pointed out that mainly proved anomalies has been raised on account of my placement in seniority list, at an outcome of the wrong assessment of seniority policy.

It is also noted that my colleague, Sri SUVENDU DAS, KIRITI KUMAR PAL, ABDUR RAHIM KHAN whose was co applicant of my appeal dated 17/02/2020 got his desired seniority of the concerned seniority list. In this regard, please arrange to furnish the following information under the purview of Section 6 of RTI act, 2005.

i) Please, let me intimate whether my above mentioned appeals complied or not.

ii) If complied, please serve the latest status report of the seniority list

iii) If not complied, please provide me the denial report of the said process by maintains the rule and law as laid down in establishment rule and manual.

(v) Please specify the legal rules by which Sri SUVENDU DAS, KIRITI KUMAR PAL, ABDUR RAHIM KHAN got promotion as Senior Goods Train Manager, over riding the process of fixing seniority, which consists of the same seniority list."

2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 31.01.2024, held as under:

"Reference above, in response of three identical RTI applications regarding the issue of seniority position of Sr. Goods Train Manager for which the applicants had been provided reply by PIO on 07 12.2023 and subsequently the grievance reply had been forwarded by Officer-in- Charge of concerned Establishment Section on 08 12 2023.

Being not satisfied with the reply, the applicants made appeal on 15.01.2024. After due examination of the RTI application and the appeal vis-a-vis the remarks of PIO, the following observation is listed out:-

i)The Applicants have every right to disagree with the conclusion, which was given by PIO, but they have no right to use such unparliamentary language against a public servant in quasi-judicial forum.

ii) The applicants may avail the opportunity as per PIO for open discussion with the related department to sort out your grievances on any working days (except Sat, Sunday and holiday) on prior intimation.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of."

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

4. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Shri Harsh Kumar Garg, PIO-cum-Senior DPO, attended the hearing through VC.

5. The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application.

6. The Respondent submitted that first reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 07.12.2023, informing as under:

"Reference above, you have made RTI applications with identical issue related to your seniority position without involvement of any sort of Larger Public Interest rather than your personal reasons. These need to be closely tested against the Public Purpose norms as found in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. There is no reason why time and energy of a public authority be expended to supply information to one of its own employees, when that information is purely personal to that employee.

It would be pertinent to refer to one of the ruling passed by the Ld Commission vide order dated 14.6.2007 in Decision No.883/IC (A)/2007, F No. CIC/PB/A/2007/00373 which read as:

5. The information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to Page 3 of 7 question the decisions of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information. Such employees have access, to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. Unfortunately, a large number of the government employees are seeking information for promotion of their personal interest.

This is done on the pretest of serving the public cause, without realizing the extent of distortions that it causes in use of public resources due to putting up frivolous applications by them for self-interest. This appeal is in no way exception.

6. In the instant case, the information seeker and the provider being part of the same system should work together for evolving approaches to remove irritants in their mutual interaction, as a lot of public resources devoted to provide service to the entire Indian community is thus un-productivity. used. They ought to exercise restraints in misusing the Act, lest they should dilute the mandate of the RTI Act to empower the common man.

However, information is appended below:-

i) Seniority list (Provisional) of Goods Guard/HWH has been published vide EAT Section/HWH's Letter No. EAT/Guard/Seniority dated 06.03.2019 as per the then cadre strength. Subsequently provisional seniority list was published on 21.07.2022 and 31.05.2023 for next years as per the then Men On Roll position on specific cadre along with representations, if any. ii) Same as item No. (i).

Same as item No. (i).

iv) Seniority rules/guidelines are available in railway website. PIO is not entrusted to interpret the law/rule himself/herself. Applicants, working as Sr. Goods Train Manager may visit the concerned establishment Section for discussion, if any."

7. While explaining the brief background of the case, he submitted that Appellant's seniority was fixed correctly as Train Manger (Goods) in recruitment grade with bottom seniority as per the rule of RBE 08/2019. But, at that time, the seniority position of Sri Kiriti Kr Pal and Suvendu Das was not correctly fixed as per the extant Rule. Mutual transfer of Abdur Rahim Khan has been done within the same cadre (i.e. Goods Train Manager). Hence, the seniority position of Abdur Rahim Khan has been assigned correctly as per extant Rule. At present, the rectified seniority list has been published on 23.07.2025 showing the correct position of Shri Bappaditta Ghosh, Shri Kiriti Kr Pal and Shri Suvendu Das, as on date in the cadre of Sr. Goods Train Manager. He further reiterated the Page 4 of 7 contents of his written submission wherein a revised and updated reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Appellant.

8. A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 23.07.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Respondent and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:

"GROUNDS

1. That the Complainant/ Appellant has been prejudiced of his rights illegally and without following the due procedure of rules governing for promotion from Goods Guard to Sr. Goods Guard.

II. That the Complainant/ Appellant has been prejudiced by violating his fundamental rights mentioned under Article 14 of the Constitution of India by arbitrarily not promoting him to the post of Sr. Goods Guard where his colleagues namely Sri Suvendu Das, Kiriti Kumar Pal, Abdur Rahim Khan have been duly promoted by office order no. EAT/148/2021. III. That the Complainant/ Appellant along with his above mentioned colleagues made several objection applications to the appropriate authority before appointing as Sr. Goods Guard post and made RTI application but very surprisingly except the Complainant/ Appellant all his above-mentioned colleagues duly appointed for the post of Sr. Goods Guard. IV. That the Complainant/ Appellant has not been furnished with proper information and reasons for not promoting him to the of Sr. Goods Guard which violates the Complainant/Appellant's right to be informed under RTI Act, 2005.

V. That the actions and steps taken by the Respondent authority is bad, mala- fide, irrational and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

In the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is prayed before your Honour would be graciously pleased to -

(a) Direct the Sr. Divisional Personal Officer & PIO to disclose the reasons and informations mentioned in the RTI application of the Complainant/Appellant to him, or

(b) Direct The Additional Divisional Railway Manager(Admin) & First Appellate Authority, Divisional Railway Manager's Office, Howrah-

711101 to disclose the reasons and informations in the RTI application (First Appeal) to the Complainant/Appellant,

(c) Impose cost on the above-mentioned two officers namely Sr. Divisional Personal Officer & PIO and The Additional Divisional Railway Manager(Admin) & First Appellate Authority, Divisional Railway Manager's Office, Howrah-711101 for not disclosing the valid reasons relating to the grievance of the Complainant/Appellant mentioned in his application, or

(d) Pass such other Order(s) as Your Honour may deem fit and proper."

9. A written submission has been received from Shri Harsh Kumar Garg, PIO- cum-Senior DPO, vide letter dated 25.07.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:

"1. Reference above, the RTI application dated 22.11.2023 submitted by Sri Bappaditta Ghosh, Sr. Goods Train Manager/BWN, (consisting Four queries related to seniority) had been examined and provided item wise information/reply by the then PIO dated 07.12.2023 (Annexure, A-1).

2. For not satisfying with the reply of the then PIO, the applicant was made First Appeal before the Appellate Authority on 15.01.2024 and reply had been provided to the applicant on 31.01.2024 (Annexure, A-2) by the Appellate Authority. 3. Therefore, the issue raised by the applicant is scrutinized and the following observation is listed out:-

The Applicant, Sri Bappaditta Ghosh, Sr. Goods Tr. Manager/BWN(ex-Goods Train Manager/Malda Division, E. Rly.), was appointed through RRB as Trainee Train Manger (Goods) in level-5, GP-2800/-, scale Rs- 5200-20200/- and subsequently transferred to Howrah Division on 07.06.18 on mutual exchange with Sri Praveen Kumar, Sr. Goods Train Manager(Sr. Goods Guard)/Rampurhat vide this office Order No. EAT/139/2018 dated 14.06.18 (Annexure, A-3). As the mutual transfer has been occurred between two different grades i.e. Sr. Goods Train Manger of L-6 with Goods Train Manger of L-5, So, as per extant rule of Mutual Transfer(RBE 08/2019), Para-9, (Annexure, A-4) his seniority was fixed correctly as Train Manger(Goods) in recruitment grade with bottom seniority in respective new units. But, at that time seniority position of Sri Kiriti Kr Pal and Suvendu Das was not correctly fixed as per the extant rule. As mutual transfer of Abdur Rahim Khan was occurred between the same cadre (i.e. Goods Train Manager), hence, the seniority position of Abdur Rahim Khan has been assigned correctly as per extant rule.

However, the applicant Sri Bappaditta Ghosh, has already been promoted to the post of Sr. Goods Train Manager after suitability test vide this office letter no. E-2/Traffic/Guards/Sr. Goods /Pt.II dated 09.02.23(Annexure, A-5).

4. Item wise information/reply of applicant's query is as under:-

i. Appeals of the applicant has been complied.

ii. Rectified seniority list has been published vide this office letter no. E-2/Train Manager/Misc/Part Il dated 23.07.2025. Applicant has been intimated by this office along-with rectified seniority list which was published on 23.07.2025.

iii. Query does not arise.

iv. Applicant's seniority was fixed correctly as Train Manger (Goods) in recruitment grade with bottom seniority as per the rule of RBE 08/2019, Para-9. But, at that time, the seniority position of Sri Page 6 of 7 Kiriti Kr Pal and Suvendu Das was not correctly fixed as per the extant rule.

Mutual transfer of Abdur Rahim Khan was occurred between the same cadre (i.e. Goods Train Manager), hence, the seniority position of Abdur Rahim Khan has been assigned correctly as per extant rule.

5. At present, the rectified seniority list has been published on 23.07.25 showing the correct position of S/Sri Bappaditta Ghosh, Kiriti Kr Pal and Suvendu Das as on date in the cadre of Sr. Goods Train Manager. (Annexure, A-6) and Sri Bappaditta Ghosh has already been informed vide this office letter no. E-2/Train Manager/Misc/Part 11 dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure, A-7)."

Decision:

10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable reply based on available records has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 07.12.2023. Further the written submission sent by the Respondent vide letter dated 25.07.2025, is more elaborate and is treated as updated reply. Grievance of the Appellant about wrong pay fixation cannot be addressed under the scope and ambit of the RTI Act.

Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)