Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rohtas Singh vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 19 November, 2024

                             के ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई िद      ी, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/NRALF/A/2023/136140

ROHTAS SINGH                                      .....अपीलकता/Appellant


                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम


CPIO,
Office of the Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway, Station Road, Cantt.
Area, Firozpur - 152001                                .... ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                      :    14.11.2024
Date of Decision                     :    19.11.2024

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on             :    24.02.2023
CPIO replied on                      :    Not on record
First appeal filed on                :    29.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order    :    Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated           :    28.08.2023



Information sought

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 24.02.2023 seeking the following information:

"Reassignment of seniority in reference to CAT/JU orders of Sh. Amardeep Singh with ref. Bikaner Division office no. 54/69/Pem/GC/X dated 30th march 87.

Keeping in view the above please may provide information as below;- 1 Which grade/ pose of Goods clerk (sh. Amardeep Singh transferred from Bikaner Division to FZR Division) was working before this letter and in which grade/ post remained/ worked as per this letter up to 1996.

Factual position of above may please be given."

Having not received any response from CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2023. The FAA's order is not on record.

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: Shri Sagar Vats, APO, appeared through video conference.

The appellant inter alia submitted that neither the CPIO nor the FAA provided any reply or information till the date of hearing.

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 11.11.2024 stating complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place it on record, copy of the same was sent to the appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:

"This submission is in reference to the upcoming hearing regarding the RTI appeal filed by Sh. Rohtas Singh, seeking information related to the seniority reassignment of Sh. Amardeep Singh, Goods Clerk, as per the orders issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/JU) in conjunction with Bikaner Division Office reference no. 54-69/PEM/GC/X dated 30th January 1987. The appeal raised concerns about perceived delays in our responses, which we clarify below, alongside an outline of the responses provided and the steps taken to remain within compliance with RTI regulations and timelines.

Details of the Original RTI Request and Appeal

1. RTI Registration No. NRFZD/P/3/800037 dt: 23.03.2023 Information Requested: Sh. Rohtas Singh sought records related to the reassignment of seniority for Sh. Amardeep Singh, including details of his designation and Grade Pay (GP) in the Goods Clerk, both prior to and after the issuance of the letter Bikaner Div. Office no. 54-69/PEM/GC/X dated 30th January 1987, with reference to his transfer from Bikaner Division to Firozpur (FZR) Division, up until 1996.

Response Provided: We issued our reply through letter no. 443- E/33/RTI/Pt.IV/P1 on 06.04.2023 (copy enclosed), within the stipulated response period. Our reply indicates that the requested records from 1996 and earlier, being over 26 years old, were not available at this office due to archival limitations. However, we informed Sh. Rohtas Singh of the option to inspect relevant records, should he wish, at the DRM/FZR office on any working day. This step was suggested to facilitate access to any available historical records.

2. RTI Appeal Registration No. NRFZD/A/P/23/00013 dt: 18.05.2023 Appeal Request Details: The appeal raised by Sh. Rohtas Singh sought the same information as his initial RTI request.

Response to Appeal: Our office issued a response to the appeal through letter no. 443-E/33/RTI/Pt.VI/P1A on 06.06.2023 (copy enclosed), again within the specified timeline. In this response, we clarified that the requested information could not be shared under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as it pertains to third- party information involving a different individual, namely Sh. Amardeep Singh. Additionally, it was noted that Sh. Amardeep Singh has formally stated that he does not consent to the sharing of information related to him with other individuals. This position, combined with RTI Act provisions, legally restricts us from disclosing this information to any third party without explicit consent.

Our office has adhered to the prescribed timelines in responding to both the RTI and the subsequent appeal. We recognize the significance of the request but were bound by the RTI Act's regulations regarding third- party information and the preservation of old records."

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the respondent has replied to the RTI application vide letter dated 06.04.2023 wherein it was informed that information sought more than 26 years old, hence, the same was not available with them. Further, the FAA vide order dated 06.06.2023 stated that information sought pertained to third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they denied the information under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant failed to establish any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information.

The appellant during the hearing submitted that he has not received any reply from the respondents. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the respondent is directed to provide a copy of the written submission dated 11.11.2024, along with its enclosure to the appellant, free of cost, within three weeks' time from the date of receipt of this order.

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 FAA, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Station Road, Cantt.

Area, Firozpur - 152001 Page 4 of 5 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)