Central Information Commission
Palani D vs Southern Railway on 9 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SORLY/A/2023/121890
Palani D .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Divisional Railway
Manager, Personnel Branch,
Southern Railway, Chennai Division,
Park Town, Chennai-60003. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.08.2024
Date of Decision : 08.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.10.222
CPIO replied on : 21.11.2022
First appeal filed on : 15.12.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 30.03.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.05.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.10.2022 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
I humbly Requested to you sir, I wish to bring a few lines for yours's consideration and favorable Reply for my Previous sent Requestions (letters] Through RTI Act 2005 as follow as given below.
Requestions letter's while on duty-working Periods Given dates:-
1. Requestion Given to Sr. DPO/MAS as on 28.04.2015.
to Sr. DSTE/MAS
2. Requestion Given to Sr. DPO/MAS as on 29.05.2015.
to Sr. DSTE/MAS
3. Requestion Given to Sr. DPO/MAS as on 10.08.2015.
to Sr. DSTE/MAS Requestions Letters After Superannuation Periods Given dates.
1. First Requestion Send-on, 28-10-2021-by Regd post with Acknowledgement due,
2. Reminder No: 1- Send-on. 28-12-2021- by Regd Post with Acknowledgement. Due.
3. Reminder No: 2- Send-on. 19-03-2022-by Regd Post with Acknowledgement. Due.
4. Reminder No: 3- Send-on. 28-04-2022-by Regd Post with Acknowledgement Due,
5. Reminder No: 4- Send-on. 28-05-2022-by Regd Post with Acknowledgement Due,
6. Reminder No: 5- Send-on. 28-06-2022-by Regd Post with Acknowledgement Due,
7. Reminder No: 6- Send-on. 28-07-2022-by Regd Post with Acknowledgement Due,
8. Reminder No: 7- Send-on. 01-09-2022-by Regd Post with Acknowledgement Due,
9. Reminder No: 8- Send-on. 28-09-2022-by Regd Post with Acknowledgement Due, The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.11.2022 stating as under:
You have not sought any specific document as defined under section 2(f) of RTI A. From your application it is seen that you may have some grievance on some of your service condition for the redressal of which you have given several representations to Sr. DPO/MAS. Your RTI Page 2 of 6 application is based on not getting reply for your several representations from Sr. DPO/MAS.
However, you are hereby informed that your request is under process on scrutinizing the service register, reply will be given to you shortly by the concerned cadre officer.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.12.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 30.03.2023, held as under.
Your RTI application as well as appeal are based on your grievance on service condition i.e. increment and promotion while in service. Please note that redressal of grievance on service matters is not under the purview of RTI Act.
However, you have already been given reply by the competent authority regarding your grievance vide letter No. M/P(S)/IX/276/Misc dated 07/02/2023. A copy enclosed. There is no further information available to be given to you.
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: Ms. Sriranganayaki, APO/APIO, Chennai Div. present through video-conference.
Written submission dated 30.07.2024 filed by the Appellant is taken on record.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply by reiterating the contents of his written submission dated 30.07.2024 wherein he inter alia pleaded as under -
"....Requested sir, I wish to Bring a few lines for yours Kind charitable consideration , I am [PALANI] Appointed as TCM/III/0n 20.01.1983. IN CHENNAI DIVISION Through R.S.C and I am Belongs from SC-Adidravida Community, In my suspect my SC seniority may in proper position Because I got Sr. Tech- promotion very late comparing with my co. employees (SC) Page 3 of 6 Example As per seniority list-of Sr. Tech/TCM/wireless man, cabe Jointer, S & T Dept/Tele wing Chennai Division Letter No M/P (SCT) 612/ Seniority DRM's office Personnel Branch, Chennai Division Dated 13.07.2015.
In this list-SL.no. 6) my D. SIVALIRIGAMM (SC) PFNO: 04257029, sr Tech/TCM/ER/RPM but He was Appointed as TCM/III-on 21.01.1983 In TVC DIVISION. Other division Employee. But He got sr. Tech Promotion Before to me He Got-Sr. Tech on 01.11.2003 SL. NO. 15 Mr.T.C MANOHARAN(SC) PFNO. 04463055, Sr. Tech/WIM/Tele/MAS He was Appointed as WIM/lII-on 17.08.1984 IN CHENNAI DIVISION But He got Sr Tech promotion on 20.07.2005.
SL NO 17 MY D.PALANI (SC) my Self PFIW 04461010 Appointed as TCM/III/on 20.01.1983 in Chennai Division But I got-Sr. Tech on 17.05.2008 very late only.
The above afore said matters Informed/Requisition to SR DPO/MAS and SR DSTE/ MAS as follow as dated on 28.04.2015 and 10.08.2015. But both officers is not taken Any Action towards my Requisition.
In this same matter, informed/Requisition sent to Sr. DPO/MAS on 28.10.2021 and RTI ACT/2005 on 28.10.202. Further APPELLAT. First APPELLAT ADRM APPELLAT AUTHORITY-CHENNAL DIVISION-SOUTHERN RAILWAY on 15.12.2022 Both OFFICERS Replies are Not PROVISIONALY PROOF comparing with seniority list. So kindly to consider to my Requisitions Already Requisition sent to your end CIC on 11.05.2023 and two reminders also sent on dated 15.09.2023."
Respondent submitted that through this RTI Application the Appellant has not sought for any specific information rather he only invited attention towards his various representations wherein he compared his seniority with two different category posts/officers whose trade/cadre are different. Further, in case of grant of MACP it is not necessary to issue seniority list as claimed by the Appellant. In this regard, the Respondent volunteered to clarify the doubts of the Appellant in writing through revised reply.
Page 4 of 6Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to facts and circumstances of the case and upon a perusal of the facts on record finds that the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the reply provided by the Respondent is bereft of merit as the contents of RTI Application do not strictly conform to the definition of "information" as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act. It appears that the Appellant is not clear as to what specific information he is seeking under the RTI Act.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subjected to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
Nonetheless, Ms. Sriranganayaki, APO/APIO, Chennai Division is directed to give a revised reply along with reasons/ justifications as committed during the hearing within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai Division, 4th Floor, Annexe Building, Park Town, Chennai-60003.Page 6 of 6
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)