Central Information Commission
Tapan Kumar Jana vs South 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/SERLK/A/2024/612307
Tapan Kumar Jana .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the CMS/KGP,
South Eastern Railway,
Divisional Hospital,
Kharagpur, WB721301 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.08.2025
Date of Decision : 20.08.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.11.2023
CPIO replied on : 29.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 09.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 23.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.03.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 14.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Please mention the receiving date of Circular no. SER/P-KGP/E- HRA/Policy/KGP/2022 dt-28.12.2022 by Medical Dept./KGP/SER.Page 1 of 6
2. Please mention the date of put up the Circular no. SER/P-KGP/E- HRA/Policy/KGP/2022 dt-28.12.2022 to the Chairman of Quarter Committee of Medical Dept./KGP/SER by the concern dealer."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 29.11.2023 stating as under:
"In reference to your letter mentioned above, it is to inform you that HRA is a policy matter and it pertains to personnel department of Kharagpur division. The personnel department of Kharagpur division circulated the letter to all Departments on & after 28/12/2022. (Copy Enclosed)."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 23.01.2024, held as under.
"Your appeal has been reviewed, in reference to above and the requisite information as sought for duly communicated vide PIO & CMS/KGP's letter No.G/Mis/T.K.Jana/24/43 dated 19/01/2024 in prescribed format containing Two (02 pages) are enclosed herewith for your ready reference. This is for your kind information.
Thus, the Appeal dated 09/12/2023 is disposed of."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Dr. Upal Laha, Additional Chief Medical Superintendent, Kharagpur Division, appeared through video conference.
4. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 19.03.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply given by the Respondent PIO.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 02.08.2025 stating complete Page 2 of 6 facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record.
The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"The following response to the above is as per the Policy for drawal of HRA and HRA claim format outlined in letter No. B/3/Qrs./Med/HRA/Policy/1876 dated 10.01.2023, issued to the Sr. DPO (Ruling), S.E. Railway/Kharagpur, and based on DRM (P)'s reference letter No. SER/P-KGP/E- HRA/Policy/KGP/2022 dated 28.12.2022 and received by this office on 02.01.2023 and further letter correspondence to Sr. DPO (Ruling) of essential and non-essential category of Medical Department of KGP Division on 10.01.2023.
Subsequently, as per Sr. DPO's letter No. SER/P-KGP/E-HRA/Essential & Non-Essential/2023 dated 08.05.2023, identification of essential and non- essential posts within the Medical Department of KGP Division was carried out, and this information was circulated vide this office letter No. B/3/Qtr./Med/HRA/essential and non-essential/23/1939, dated:
13.05.2023.
Further clarification regarding the drawal of HRA for essential staff was sought via this office letter No. B/3/Qtr./Med/HRA/23/2041, dated:
21.10.2023. In response, DRM(P) vide letter No. SER/P-
KGP/Ruling/HRA/Med/Clari, dated 03.11.2023 confirmed that the instructions outlined in item No. 6 under the heading "FOR ESSENTIAL/RUNNING STAFF" (sub-items No. (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)) of the policy letter dated 28.12.2022 should be followed for the drawal of HRA in case of essential staff.
An online RTI application was submitted by Sri Tapan Kumar Jana vide Application No. SERLY/R/E/23/02610, dated 14.11.2023, and was received by this office on 18.11.2023. In response, this office informed the applicant, vide letter No. SER/P-KGP/740/RTI/23/617 dated 29.11.2023 that the matter is not permissible under the essential staff rule and pertains to the Personnel Department. Accordingly, the case was treated as closed.
In response to the first appeal submitted by Sri Tapan Kumar Jana, vide Registration No. SERLY/A/E/23/00386 dated 09.12.2023, this office furnished a reply vide letter No. G/MIS/T.K. Jana/24/43. dated 19.01.2024 to the First Appellate Authority (ADRM/KGP) regarding the drawal of HRA in favour of Sri. Tapan Kumar Jana, Ch. Pharmacist/OSHU/KGP. It was stated that at the time of his HRA application, one eligible Type-IV railway quarter under the General Pool was lying vacant. Therefore, his application was rejected in accordance with the policy guidelines issued by DRM(P)/KGP Page 3 of 6 vide letter dated 28.12.2022. Sri. Tapan Kumar Jana had already been informed of this decision through this office letter No. B/3/Qtr/Med/HRA/23/2005 dated 10.08.2023 (copy enclosed). Thereafter, the 1st Appellate Authority and ADRM/Kharagpur replied to Sri. Tapan Kumar Jana, vide letter No. SERLY/A/E/23/00386/Online Reply, dated 23.01.2024. The reply, in the prescribed format containing two (2) pages, enclosed the policy dated 28.12.2022(as Essential/ Running Staff), which clearly indicated that an eligible Type-IV railway quarter under the General Pool was lying vacant at the time of his application. Therefore, HRA could not be permitted against him. This information was also duly communicated to Mr. Tapan Kumar Jana by this office.
Therefore, it is to mention that the necessary information as sought for under the RTI Appeal has already been provided and appropriate action has been taken.
Submitted for kind consideration of the above and the Appeal of Sri. Tapan Kumar Jana, may kindly be treated as complied with."
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the RTI reply dated 29.11.2023 was adequate, as the information sought was limited to receipt and circulation dates of the policy letter, which were duly clarified.
However, since the Respondent has filed a detailed written submission with annexures during hearing, principles of natural justice require that a copy of the same be provided to the Appellant for his records. Accordingly, the Respondent PIO is directed to furnish a copy of their written submission dated 02.08.2025 along with all annexures to the Appellant, free of cost, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The RTI reply already furnished is otherwise found to be satisfactory, and no further substantive information remains to be disclosed.
8. Notwithstanding above, a pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated CPIO's and FAA's, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID's which is violation of instructions on the subject. In this regard, the Page 4 of 6 Commission finds it pertinent to refer its own judgment dated 02.07.2012, passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000971, wherein it has been held as under:
"9. CPIO is directed to provide full and complete information regarding expenditure incurred on all types of gifts including coats at the above-mentioned conference to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of the order. Furthermore, commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO.
10. CPIO is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future."
9. The Commission would also like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
"It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned."
Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act Page 5 of 6
10. In view of above, an advisory, is issued to General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority's office and issue a direction to their CPIO's and FAA's to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeals in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005.
11. The General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata, is also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
12. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
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 Copy To:
The General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata - 700043 The FAA, ADRM, South Eastern Railway, Divisional Hospital, Kharagpur, WB- 721301 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to maintain records in digital form for proper management and ease of access in compliance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)