Central Information Commission
V Ramesh Chandra vs Department Of Posts on 29 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/142068
V Ramesh Chandra ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Department of Post,
Karnataka ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 23.08.2023 FA : 06.09.2023 SA : 12.10.2023
CPIO : 28.08.2023 FAO : 25.09.2023 Hearing : 28.01.2025
Date of Decision: 29.01.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:
"What would been have Pay+Increments+DA+HRA+CCA+other the Basic allowances Gross of 'Postmaster' (Group C) who was serving in Shivamogga Town for the month of April 1990 on implementation of IV Pay commissioner Report Effective from 1.1.1986"
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Page 1 of 3"Hypothetical question. Hence it cannot be taken as seeking information under RTI Act as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005"
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 25.09.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.10.2023
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Jairam Shetty, CPIO, Suptd. of Posts, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had raised hypothetical queries which were not covered within the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the information did not pertain to any particular Postmaster and was also 34 years old data, which was no longer available with them.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 29.01.2025 Page 2 of 3 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts, Shivamogga Division, Shivamogga, Karnataka - 577202 2 V Ramesh Chandra Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)