Central Information Commission
Mr.N S Dhakite vs Ministry Of Railways on 2 February, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001529
Date of Hearing : February 2, 2011
Date of Decision : February 2, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Nandkishor S. Dhakite
44 Laxminarayan Colony
Kharbi Lay Out
Nagpur 440 034
The Applicant was present at NIC Studio, Nagpur.
Respondents
Central Railway
Divisional Railway Manager's Office
Nagpur Division
Nagpur
Represented by : Shri B.M.Shikhare, PIO and Shri Shailendra Jaiswal, Appellate Authority at NIC
Studio, Nagpur
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001529
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.8.2.10 with the PIO, Central Railway, DRM Office, Nagpur.
The PIO replied on 18.2.10. The information sought and the reply provided are given below:
S.No. Information sought Reply provided
i) Why Railways is delayed for There is no deliberate delay in releasing
disbursement of his balance payment your balance payment
ii) Is there any time limit for disbursing Question & Answer can not reply under the payment after retirement RTI. However, in case of normal
iii) If there is any circular of time retirement, if employee has completed the formalities before retirement i.e. filling up all limitations, provide the copy of the papers within time then his settlement can same.
be arranged on the last working day
iv) To inform the name and designation No employee is responsible, since of the employee who is responsible for Applicant has given option for RELHS illegal deduction of Rs.11,180/ from contribution which was not permissible since his services are less than 20 years.
his payment of settlement The Applicant filed an appeal dt.19.3.10 with the Appellate Authority stating that the PIO has not provided the particulars of the Appellate Authority in his reply and also that there was no response as to why there was a delay in release of balance payment. Shri Shailendra Jaiswal, Appellate Authority replied on 19.4.10 directing the PIO to invariably mention the name of Appellate Authority and the time limit to prefer an appeal in all his future communications regarding RTI applications. He added that the contention of the Applicant is correct as the name and post of employees responsible for the deduction of Rs.11180/ from his settlement was not provided and directed the PIO to provide the Applicant, the circular, if any, prescribing the time limit for payment of settlement dues and to reveal the name of staff who had prepared the deduction slip of Rs.11180/ and the name of Officer who had authorized such deduction from the settlement dues of Applicant. The Applicant filed a second appeal dt.19.7.10 before CIC stating that information was supplied by the Appellate Authority on 28.5.10 i.e. after a lapse of two months and nine days without any reason for delay of information. He added that to overcome the mistake of delay of information, the Appellate Authority had put the back dates while preparing the information letter, which is evident from the envelope used to register the letter .
Decision
2. The Commission received a rejoinder dt.31.1.11 from the Respondent in which he pointed out that the Appellant has contended that no circular regarding time limit for dispersing for payment of settlement dues has been provided to him and that the decision of the Appellate Authority dt.19.4.10 was found dispatched through registered AD on 21.5.10 and was subsequently received by him on 28.5.10. The Respondent while refuting this contention stated that even though the First Appeal was decided well before 19.4.10 as a result of clerical error by the Dispatch clerk it was posted only on 25.5.10. He further added that Appellate Authority's orders were fully complied with by the PIO by 11.5.10 with a mention of the Appellate Authority's decision dt.19.4.10 as a reference in that communication which by itself is proof of the fact that the decision of the Appellate Authority was indeed taken on 19.4.10 only, and that as such there was no fraud or deliberate foul play involved in this content as alleged by the Appellant. Te Respondent further added that the clerical staff, who had dispatched the communication late have also been pulled up for his carelessness and has been issued with a warning letter. As for the information the Respondent stated in his rejoinder that all the available information was supplied and that there is no circular in force prescribing time limit for settlement of dues, and hence the same cannot be provided.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that he is in possession of a letter in which reference to a particular circular containing the information he is seeking has been made and he complained that the Respondents had not provided that circular to him with malafide intention. The Respondents, however, maintained that as per their records, no such circular as that being sought by the Appellant is available in their records and added that had the Appellant provided them with some details whichare available with him they would have even tried and obtained the circular (provided it exists) from the Railway Board.
4. The Commission after hearing both sides and on perusal of submissions on record directs the PIO to provide an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant stating that the circular relating to the prescription for time limit of settlement of dues is not available in their records. The affidavit should reach the Commission/Appellant by 2.3.11 and the Appellant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 9.3.11.
5. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Nandkishor S. Dhakite 44 Laxminarayan Colony Kharbi Lay Out Nagpur 440 034
2. The Public Information Officer Central Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Nagpur Division Nagpur
3. The Appellate Authority Central Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Nagpur Division Nagpur
4. Officer Incharge, NIC