Central Information Commission
Swaran Singh vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 31 March, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NRALF/A/2020/140018 -UM
Mr. Swaran Singh
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Nodal Officer (RTI Cell)
Northern Railway
DRM Office Ferozpur-152001
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.03.2022
Date of Decision : 31.03.2022
Date of RTI application 17.07.2020
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 27.10.2020
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 17.12.2020
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information on 03 points, as under:-
1. Copy of my upto dated service book.
2. My upto dated personal file copy.
3. Statement of calculation of my pension sheet.Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Swaran Singh, participated through AC, Respondent: Mr. Chander Shekhar, D.P.O., participated through AC.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that he had sought information regarding his service book, personal file, pension sheet, etc but the reply which had been furnished is not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He alleged that the Respondent has erred in his pay fixation am that the CPIO has replied that the information sought is not traceable and hence cannot be furnished to him. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 11.01.2021 they had furnished a reply as per the provisions of RTI Act. He further stated that the Appellant worked in the construction organisation of the railway and that the Appellant informed about the alleged error in his pay fixation was raised very late , about 6-7 years after his retirement. He added that the records have now been misplaced and that the matter is also pending before the CAT. He submitted that no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 29.03.2022 which is taken on record.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to put more efforts in searching the records, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 and submit a suitable Page 2 of 3 and an updated revised reply to the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर)
(Information Commissioner) (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत)
(R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पजं ीयक)
011-26182598
द्वदनांक / Date: 31.03.2022
Page 3 of 3