Central Information Commission
R. D. Mutalik vs Department Of Posts on 26 November, 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/2024/137842
R. D. Mutalik ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Department of Posts,
Gokak ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 25.06.2024 FA : 30.07.2024 SA : 21.11.2024
CPIO : 09.07.2024 FAO : 16.08.2024 Hearing : 19.11.2025
Date of Decision: 25.11.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Response of the representation dated 24/25-6-024"
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"As per Postal Department Rulings, every three years Triennial review and revision of allowances of GDS should be carried. Hence, this office was reviewed Gubalgud BO in the year of 2014 and resultant workload was 53.81 points only which were below 75 points.
Hence, this office was given one year pay protection to you to continue TRCA level of Rs.3660-70-5760 instead of reducing the pay directly and given opportunity to Page 1 of 3 improve the workload of the BO. But you were not improved the workload, even though issued several instructions from this office. Further, Triennial review was done in the year of 2016 and your resultant workload was 39.81 only against 75 points. Hence, this office was reduced your TRCA from 3660-70-5760 to 2745-50- 4245 w.e.f.01.07.2016. This is for your kind information."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.07.2024 seeking issuance of necessary direction/orders to the concerned authority/officials and for making necessary corrections to be made in his salary records since 2016 to 2021. The FAA vide order dated 16.08.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO and held that only information available on record can be made available by the PIO, whereas the appellant has not sought information in either the RTI application or the First Appeal. It is basically a grievance of the appellant in the guise of the RTI application, and hence the same could not be answered under the RTI Act.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.11.2024.
5. The appellant attended hearing through video conference with his authorized representative, viz. Mr. N D Mutalik on behalf of the respondent Mr. S D Kakde - Supdt. of Post, Gokak attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant contended that he was dissatisfied because his TRCA related payment had not been addressed to his satisfaction.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia contended that information available on record in this regard had been duly furnished by the PIO vide reply dated 09.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 16.08.2024 had addressed the issue in a detailed self explanatory manner stating that while information available and existing on records stand duly furnished to the appellant, in so far as the appellant's grievance with the TRCA is concerned, the same relates to administrative policy and/or decision making which cannot be answered under the scope of the RTI Act. the PIO and FAA have both provided as much information as possible even explaining the issue about his TRCA payment, but Page 2 of 3 clarification in this regard cannot be provided, under the scope of the RTI Act. The appellant may approach appropriate grievance redressal mechanism for the same.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that firstly the PIO's response and the FAA's order contain adequate information addressing the issue raised by the appellant. In view of the deliberations between parties during hearing, the Commission is in agreement with the contentions of the Respondent that grievance between parties cannot be addressed under the purview of the RTI Act. In the light of the aforementioned facts, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 25.11.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO O/o. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Suptd., & CPIO, Department of Posts, Gokak Division, Gokak-577501
2. R. D. Mutalik Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)