Central Information Commission
Kamlesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 5 March, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MORLY/A/2017/138812
Kamlesh Kumari ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. The CPIO, M/O. Railways, Rail ... ितवादी /Respondent
Coach Factory, Kapurthala,
Punjab.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 18-11-2016 FA : 06-01-2017 SA: 07-06-2017
CPIO : 21-12-2016 FAO : 16-02-2017 Hearing: 01-03-2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala, Punjab seeking following information:-
"(i)What action has been taken by the GM(P)/RCF on my representation ? The certified copy of the action taken report may please be supplied.
(ii) What action has been taken by the FA & CAO/RCF on my said representation? The certified copy of the action taken report may please be supplied.
(iii) The certified copies of the correspondence between GM(P)/RCF and FA & CAO/RCF, Personnel department & Account department may please be supplied.Page 1 of 5
(iv) Complete PP noting(s) of Personnel Department & Account Department in connection with my case / representation with tangible evidence /Annexure may please be supplied.
(v) Whether the family pension drawn by Smt. Vrinder Kaur w/o Late.
Sh. Balkaran Singh (Tech-III/Shell, Emp.No. 509103) was fixed correctly? If yes, then why my family pension is lesser than her, as I have mentioned in my representation. Certified copy of the relevant and specific rule(s) may please be supplied in this regard.
(vi) If family pension of Smt. Virinder Kaur was wrongly fixed as per verbal version of P-Branch officials and Account officials, then whether her (Smt. Virinder Kaur) family pension has been revised and reduced. Certified copy of the official letters/correspondence writen/done to/with bank and concerned employee for reduction of pension & recovery of excess amount made, may also please be furnished.
(vii) Certified copies of the representation(s) on the basis of which the family pension of Smt. Virinder Kaur and three other ladies (Pension holders) were enhanced. How much axrear was paid to Smt. Virinder Kaur, Smt Jaswinder Kaur, Smt. Sukhdev Kaur as a result of said revised fixation of pension w.e.f. 01-01-2016 and the amount of arrear paid to them be specified.
(viii) If wrong fixation of family pension has been done in case of Smt. Virinder Kaur and three other females/ladies (Pension holders), then what action has been taken against the concerned erring officials. Certified copy of the action taken report against them (if taken) may please be supplied. If no action taken against erring officials, then reason for the same may please be conveyed with PP noting(s) of the concerned officials from supervisory level to CPO & FA&CAO, RCF.
(ix)Why the RCF Administration i.e. the office of GM (P) and FA & CAO has not bothered to give reply to my representation dated 16.10.2014 addressed to GM(P)/RCF and FA & CAO/RCF (copy already attached). Whether it was/is not mandatory to dispose of the representation of an employee within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of representation as per Railway Board's letter No. E(D&A)69 RG6-3 Dated 14.02.1969. Why the Administration has brazenly violated the above letter by not giving even short reply what to speak of passing "Speaking Orders"? Please clarify the position with specific reasons and rules of the Railway Establishment in this regard. Certified information may please be furnished.
(x)If the pension of Smt. Virinder Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur, Smt. Sukhdev Kaur & Smt. Rashpal Kaur has been reduced, then detail of existing pension of all these pension holder may please be provided."
Page 2 of 52. The CPIO responded on 21-12-2016. Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 06-01-2017 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 16-02-2017. Thereafter, she filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct the CPIO to provide the sought for information. Hearing:
3. The appellant, Ms. Kamlesh Kumari participated in the hearing along with her representative, Mr. Brij Mohan through video conferencing. Mr. Manjit Singh, Sr. PRO, Mr. P. K. Tiwari, Law officer/CPIO, Personal Branch and Mr. Harjinder Singh, Sr. AFA, Accounts office participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that she is not satisfied with the reply given by the respondent. Further, she stated that the information sought on point no. 4 i.e. copy of the PP notings should also be provided to her since these form part of the file. Moreover, she stated that the information on point nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 are not the personal information of third party(s) and therefore, this information should be provided to her. On point no. 9, she stated that she is not seeking any clarification from the respondent.
5. The respondent informed the Commission vide their letter dated 26.02.2019 (which was received in the CIC vide diary no. 109612 dated 01.03.2019) that they have already provide their reply(s) indicating factual position in the matter to the appellant in following terms:-
Pt. Nos. Reply 1 Reply sent on 20.12.2016 & 21.12.2016 (letter(s) enclosed) 2 Revised PPO has been issued. (letter enclosed) 3 As per point 2 4 Direct action has been taken. Hence, no PP notings were prepared.
5 Exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. 6 Exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. 7 Exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. 8 Exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. 9 It is in the form of query which they are not obliged to answer.
However, action taken has been communicated to the applicant. 10 Exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 3 of 5
6. On insistence of the appellant for availability of information on point no. 4, the respondent agreed to provide her an opportunity to peruse the relevant file(s) relating to her only, on the suitable date and time as may be mutually fixed by them. Further, they apprised the Commission that in compliance with the CIC order dated 12.12.2017 in order no. CIC/MORLY/A/2017/134428, wherein, the similar information was sought, had also been replied to as per the aforesaid order. The given reply was also read out by the respondent.
Decision:
7. This Commission observed that the sought for information on point nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the said RTI application cannot be provided to the appellant as it is third party information exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, it is also observed that whatever information could be provided to the appellant has already been provided by the respondent as per the RTI Act, 2005. On point no. 4 with reference to the RTI application, the respondent is directed to provide an opportunity to the appellant for perusal of the relevant file(s) relating to her only, as agreed to in para 6 above on the suitable date and time, as may be mutually fixed by them.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 01-03-2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
M/O. Railways,
Rail Coach Factory,
PIO & Sr. PRO, Kapurthala, Punjab-144602.
2. Kamlesh Kumar
Page 5 of 5