Central Information Commission
Vilas Laxmanrao Barapatre vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 27 June, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2023/646103.
Shri Vilas Laxmanrao Barapatre ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.06.2024
Date of Decision : 25.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.04.2023
PIO replied on : 15.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : 21.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : 31.05.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 25.09.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.04.2023 seeking information on the following point:-
"A copy of appointment order indicating my appointment under ST category at the time of my initial appointment in the department."
The CPIO vide letter dated 15.05.2023 replied as under:-
"Not available at Bhandra SSA."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 31.05.2023 stated as under:-
"After careful study of the records kept before me and appeal preferred by the appellant, the Undersigned observed the records and is enclosing herewith the SERVICE BOOK DETAILS indicating Category as 'ST"
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 1 of 2Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Nitin Penshey - CPIO was present during hearing. The Appellant contended that he was not satisfied with the reply sent by the Respondent.
Respondent present during hearing placed reliance on the PIO's reply and contended that information held on record has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, it is evident that information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant seeks redressal of his grievance and resolution of his dispute with the Respondent, which cannot be entertained within the scope of the RTI Act. In the given circumstances, since appropriate information in terms of provisions of the RTI Act has already been provided by the Respondent, no further intervention is warranted. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)