Central Information Commission
Rajnesh vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 22 December, 2025
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/2024/618817
Smt. Rajnesh .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway, Station Road, Cantt.
Area, Firozpur - 152001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.12.2025
Date of Decision : 19.12.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 26.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 26.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 25.04.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.02.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"1. Provide me the Photo Copy of seniority list of JE/Tele in the year 2014 over Firozpur Division.CIC/NRALF/A/2024/618817 Page 1 of 4
2. Provide me the photo copy of seniority list of SSE/Tele in the year 2015 over Firozpur Division.
3. Provide me the photo copy of SC and ST community employees Roster maintained for JE/Tele Cadre over Firozpur Division of Northern Railway.
4. Provide me the photo copy of SC and ST community employees Roster maintained after the year 2015, in respect to the SSE/Tele cadre employee working over Firozpur Division of Northern Railway.
5. Provide me the photo copy and the names of SC and ST employees promoted against 2013 Restructuring from JE/Tele to SSE/Tele cadre, Firozpur Division of Northern Railway.
6. Provide me the photo copy wherein the proposal initiated for the promotion from JE/Tele to SSE/Tele cadre under Restructuring made effected in the year 2013"
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 26.03.2024 stating as under:
"Item No. 1 & 2. As per the record of retention schedule the retention period for seniority list is 3 years. Hence it is not available.
Item No. 3, 4, 5 & 6. The photocopy of proposal roster and copy of restructuring of JE/Tele to SSE/Tele cannot provided to you as per extant rule as the data is very variegated and hold sensitive information of personal nature therefore it cannot be supplied to you."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 25.04.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 11.12.2025 (name & contact details of the PIO is not mentioned) filed by the Respondent is taken on record, wherein they reiterated the contents of their averred reply. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-CIC/NRALF/A/2024/618817 Page 2 of 4
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Shri Kishan Pal Singh, APO/APIO present through video conference.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 03.05.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
7. Appellant while giving a brief background of the matter stated that her husband is also working as SSE/Tele. Therefore, she sought information on behalf of her husband regarding roster and list of SSE/Tele, JE/Tele, however, the information has been wrongly denied by the CPIO. She prayed the Commission to intervene in the matter.
8. Respondent reiterated the contents of averred reply. Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observed that the reply given by the replying Respondent (except at point No. 6 of RTI application) is vague and evasive, which also fails to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. In response to point No. 1 and 2 of RTI application, the denial of information regarding seniority list on account of records being weeded out is unacceptable because as per practice of Government Organization such records are kept in the records for much longer duration and also neither the record retention policy nor the actual destruction certificate has been produced by the CPIO in support of his claim on these points. Further, for point No. 3 to 5 of RTI application the denial of information by the replying Respondents that such information is sensitive in nature is untenable as such roster records are put in public domain in line with the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the RTI Act to maintain transparency in the system. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is allowed and the reply given by the Respondent on all the points (except for point No. 6) of RTI application is set aside.
10. The Respondent is directed to revisit the contents of point Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the RTI application and provide a revised point-wise reply on all these points of RTI application barring the copy of orders as sought by the Appellant at point No. 5 as it contains the personal information of third parties which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act. The revised reply should be CIC/NRALF/A/2024/618817 Page 3 of 4 provided to the Appellant, free of charge, within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order.
11. FAA to ensure compliance of the directions.
12. As regards response to the point No. 6 of RTI application, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the CPIO as it is in tune with the provisions of the RTI Act.
ADVISORY
13. Nonetheless, in the spirit of the RTI Act, an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Respondent Public Authority for upfront disclosure of information, namely, seniority list, roaster of officers and its related information, as sought in this RTI application and its related Rules, Circulars, Office Orders, Bye Laws, etc. under Section 4 of the RTI Act in public domain, as recently directed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Kishan Chand Jain v. UOI & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 990 of 2021 to make it easy for a layperson to get relevant information through website. This will also relieve the Public Authority of the burden of RTI Applications.
14. The FAA is directed to place a copy of this order before the Competent Authority concerned for compliance with the above advisory.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Sr. DPO, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Station Road, Cantt. Area, Firozpur - 152001 CIC/NRALF/A/2024/618817 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)