Central Information Commission
Suresh vs Directorate General Defence Estates ... on 26 June, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DIGDE/A/2024/103838
Suresh .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Jabalpur Cantonment Board,
Cantt, Jabalpur - 482001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.06.2025
Date of Decision : 26.06.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.07.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 19.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 03.07.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. मेरे वारा दनांक 18/12/2019 को आपके सम आवेदन प तुत कर वेतन व ृ ध दान कये जाने क ाथना क गई थी, उ$त आवेदन पर आपके वारा क गई कायवाह& से संबं धत द तावेज( क मा)णत +त,ल.प।Page 1 of 4
2. यह क, वष 2001 से मझ ु े वेतन व ृ ध दान नह&ं कये जाने के कारण क मा)णत +त,ल.प ।
3. यह क, मझ ु े रा23&य दवस( म4 दान कये गये पु5 कार( एवं त+त प ( क मा)णत +त,ल.प।"
2. Having not received any response from PIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2023. The FAA order is Not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
4. The following were present:-
Appellant: He along with Shri Mausam Pasi, Advocate present through videoconference.
Respondent: Ms. Saroj Vishwakarma, Office Superintendent-cum-PIO present through videoconference.
5. Ld. counsel for the Appellant while narrating the factual background stated that Appellant is a 'Safai Karamchari', 4th class workers working with the Respondent organization. His salary has not been revised and a due increment of 2001was also not granted to him for which he filed complaint and thereafter, through the instant RTI application sought action taken report on his complaint and other related information. He is aggrieved by the fact that no reply has ever been provided to him till date.
6. The Respondent submitted that a reply has already been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 27.07.2023 by informing him as under -
"1. आपके वारा पूव म4 सच ू ना आवेदनप दनांक 04/02/2016 तुत कर वष 2001 क वेतनव ृ ध दान न कऐ जाने के कारण संबध ं ी जानकार& चाह& गई थी िजसका जवाब आपको इस कायालय के प दनांक 07/06/2016 वारा दया जा चुका है इस कारण आपके आवेदनप दनांक 18/12/2019 पर कायवाह& कये जाने क आव=यकता नह&ं थी।
1. उपरो$त जवाब दनांक 07/06/2016 म4 प2ट उ?लेख है क आपके .वभाग ं ा न कए जाने के कारण आपको वष 2001 क वारा अनुशस वेतनव ृ ध दान नह&ं क गई है ।Page 2 of 4
2. रा23&य दवस( वतं ता दवस एवं गणतं दवस पर कमचाDरय( के ोEसाहन हे तु उFह4 शि त प दए जाते है पंरतु न तो इनका संबध ं कमचार& के सेवा अ,भलेख( से होता है और न ह& ऐसे शि त प ( क कोई कायालय +त अथवा सूची का अ,भलेख रखा जाता है अतः चाह& गई जानकार& अि तEव म4 नह&ं होने से दान नह&ं क जा सकती।"
7. During hearing, the Respondent handed over a copy of her reply to the Appellant which is taken on record. She added that First Appellate Authority disposed of the First Appeal vide order dated 03.10.2023 with no further directions to the PIO.
8. Ld. counsel for the Appellant interjected to contest that the reply given by the PIO is completely evasive and misleading and the plea of Respondent claiming non-availability of records creates an apprehension that veracity of any such appreciation letter if used anywhere will lead to a doubt of forgery on the Appellant who may face consequent actions due to the ill-deeds of the Respondent.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the PIO at point no. 1 of application as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
10. However, the Commission observes that the reply given by the Respondent at point No. 2 and 3 of RTI application is flawed and do not adequately answer the queries raised by the Appellant in terms of the RTI Act. It is also noted that the practice adopted by the Respondent Public Authority as per their reply is an open and flagrant violation of the well-established office record maintenance procedure. The practice of neither making an entry in the service record for the appreciation letters issued nor keeping an office copy in the record may lead to serious consequences particularly for the recipient of the appreciation letter. It needs to be reviewed at higher level of the Respondent organization for which PIO is given the responsibility to place a copy of this order before the concerned competent authority.
Page 3 of 411. In view of the above, the Respondent is directed to revisit the contents of point No. 2 and 3 of RTI application and provide relevant information concerning the Appellant after accessing the same from the concerned department under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, if need be. This reply along with relevant information should be given to the Appellant by the Respondent, free of cost within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order. FAA to ensure compliance of the directions.
12. Further, the issue flagged by the Appellant regarding stagnation that is neither promotion nor MACP and denial of annual increment at a particular period is a matter of grievance, which cannot be resolved under the mandate of the RTI Act. The Respondent is advised to look into it without forcing the Appellant to approach the Court of Law.
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, Jabalpur Cantonment Board, Cantt, Jabalpur - 482001.Page 4 of 4
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)