Central Information Commission
R Mohan vs Southern Railway on 25 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SORLY/A/2024/109536
R Mohan .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Southern Railway, Divisional
Office, Personal Branch, East
Railway Colony, Suramangalam,
Salem - 636005 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.08.2025
Date of Decision : 22.08.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 27.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 20.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 02.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.03.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.12.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Ref:01. Orders of Hon'be Central Administrative Tribunal/ Madras Bench on 31.01.2023 in OA No. 300/00343/2015.
02. Show Cause notice No. SA/P.612/XII/ Minist./ E295658 Dated 11.05.2023 issued by Sr. DPO/SA.
03.Our joint representation dated 31.05.2023 in response to S.No. 02 refereed above.
Page 1 of 604. Advise from Sr. DPO/SA in No. SA/ P. 612/Minist./E295658 Dated 03.08.2023 mentioning that the representation Dated 31.05.2023 referred S. No. 03 above has been disposed in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in OA No. 343/2015.
Reference to the letter No. SA/ P.621/XII/ Minist./E-295658 Dated 03.08.2023 quoted as reference 04 above, please provide information Viz. copies / Proof/ Notification/office Order/ Court order etc. as required below under RTI 2005 Act, for which, I have enclosed Rs. 10 /= Postal Order No. 50F 030815 Dated 06-12-2023.
I hereby declare that I am fulfilling the conditions to seek information under RTI Act and I assure that I will pay the prescribed amount for collecting the information (hard copy)
01. Please provide copy of notification or Circular issued / received subsequent to the Notification No.P(R) 676/Salem Division / Formation Dated 27.04.2007 issued by the Chief personnel officer / SR/ Chennai permitting the medically decategorized employees also to exercise option similar to the employees working in the cadres on regular basis.
02. The undermentioned employees were medically decategorized much earlier than the year 2007 (ie as on 27.04.2007 at the time of issue of notification calling option) as detailed.
(i) 1 Shri. Sivaprakasalu RPF Department (Medically decategorized on 30.01.2002)
(ii) Shri. Muthukumar, RPF Department (Medically decategorized on 11.07.2001)
(iii) Shri.Ranganathan 11.07.2001) RPF Department (Medically decategorized on
(iv) Shri. Yarismy, RPF Department (Medically decategorized on 11.07.2001)
(v) Shri.K. Kirupasankar, Traffic Department( Medically decategorized on 15.10.2004)
(vi) Shri. A. Anbalagan Traffic Department (Medically decategorized on 15.07.2003) In the 11th Para it has been mentioned that medically decategorized employees are working on a regular basis in their grade. Please provide copy of Proof that the above named medically decategorized were continued against the regular working post only as on 27.04.2007 (ie at the time of issue of notification calling option) and if so, provide copy of Page 2 of 6 proof that they will get further promotion in their own Department as per their Avenue chart in their own department on the date of calling option by PCPO/MAS in their Notification No. P(R) 676/Salem Division / formation Dated 27.04.2007.
03. in view of Para 07 of the reference (04), please provide copy of the letter from the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Chennai in which communicated approval for absorption of the 23 medically decategorized employees in various department.
04. In the reference (04), it has been mentioned that the above employees are regular employees and as well as mentioned as they are medically decategorized employees and absorbed as per IREM 1310. Please provide copy of proof to treat the above named employees are regular employees with interpretation that they can be placed seniority above to the applicant in suo motto without issue of show cause notice to the affected regular employees/ applicants in the OA those who were already working in the regular ministerial cadre (not at all medically decategorized) and exercised option.
05. On medical decategorisation, the undermentioned employees as detailed were absorbed on bottom most seniority in Salem Division:
(i)Shri. Malowney Allyson, Sr. Passenger Guard Traffic Department was absorbed as OS on bottom seniority in the Optg. Department. (DPO/ Salem Letter No. SA/P. 11/XII/CS/MUF Vol. II Dated 04/06.11.2011)
(ii) Shri. R. Mayilsamy, SM of Traffic Dept.was absorbed as OS bottom seniority in Engg. Department.
(iii) Shri. T. Karunakaran was absorbed as Ticket Examiner on bottom seniority.
(iv) Shri. P. Subramanian was absorbed as OS on bottom seniority in Mechanical Department.
(v) shri. S. Sudhakar, JE was absorbed as OS on bottom seniority in Engg.
Department (DPO/ Salem letter No. SA/P. 11/XII/CS/MUF Vol. II Dated 15.05.2015)
(vi) Shri. B. Krishnamoorthy was absorbed as OS on bottom seniority in Engg. Department.
(vii)Shri. K. Gumaresan was absorbed as OS on bottom Seniority in Engg. Department.
(viii) Shri. S. Vasudevan, SS was absorbed as OS on bottom seniority in Optg. Department
(ix)Shri. S. Jagadeeswaran, SSE was absorbed absorbed as OS on bottom most seniority in Mechanical department.
Page 3 of 6Please provide copy of Railway Board Orders/ any other circular issued by HQrs /Division / Copy of IREM provision / IREC provision / court orders etc. to place the medically decategorized employees mentioned at Para 05 above on bottom seniority on their absorption and the procedure followed.
06. Salem Division was newly formed Division wef 01.11.2007. In view of Para 12 of the letter referred as S. No. 04, please provide copies of the disposal on the representation submitted by the applicants against the provisional seniority published on 30.06.2008 and also provide the copy of the final seniority published on the provisional seniority on 30.06.2008 as per PBC 170/2001."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.12.2023 stating as under:
"Information requested is not available in this office, as the information sought is beyond the retention period, specified under Record Retention Schedule."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 02.02.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Dr. M Krishna Muthu Rajan, DPO & PIO.
5. Proof of having served a copy of second appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 16.03.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide their letter dated 27.12.2023, they have informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is not available in their office, as the matter pertains to the year 2007. He stated that Salem division was constituted Page 4 of 6 in November'2007 and the Appellant is seeking information pertaining to April 2007. Further, the information sought pertains to a period of more than a decade ago, which is beyond their record retention schedule which is 10 years. He stated that the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the PIO.
Decision:
8. The Commission upon perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was non-furnishing of information by the PIO. The Commission observes that factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant as per his RTI application and as per the documents available on their records at the relevant time.
9. It is an admitted fact that the PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant.
10. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the PIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
11. Further, the Appellant is not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
12. No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
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 Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
THE FAA, Southern Railway, Divisional Office, Personal Branch, East Railway Colony, Suramangalam, Salem - 636005 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)