Central Information Commission
Rupesh Kumar Sahu vs Kolkata Port Trust on 17 May, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/KPTRS/A/2023/650071
Shri Rupesh Kumar Sahu ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Kolkata Port Trust
Date of Hearing : 15.05.2024
Date of Decision : 15.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.07.2023
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 11.09.2023
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 26.10.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.07.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Please share the name of officers (Class-1 & Class-II) of KDS who had been transferred to HDC as per office order, though were not applied for the same, in the period from 2005 to on date (say, Annex-A) and their tenure of posting in HDC.
2. Please share the HRA rate applicable to the officers of Annex-A during their tenure of posting in HDC. Furthermore, please share the HRA rate applicable to the officers (Class-1 & Class-II) posted in Kolkata (UA-Urban agglomeration) in those time comparatively. HRA guidelines issued by Government of India is enclosed herewith for the reference please.
3. Please share the name of officers (Class-1 & Class-II) of KDS who had been posted outside Kolkata i.e. out of Kolkata (UA)- (e.g. Nishchintapur, Diamond Harbour, BudgeBudge, Dadan patra, Sagar, Barahampur, Haldia etc.) in the period from 2005 to on date (say, Annex-B) and their tenure of posting therein.
4. Please share the HRA rate applicable to the officers of Annex-B (in line with Serial no-3) during their tenure of posting therein. Furthermore, please share the HRA rate applicable in Kolkata (UA) in those time comparatively."
Page 1 Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.09.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
The PIO, Dy, Chief Engineer, Civil Engineering Department vide letter dated 14.05.2024 as under :
I am to refer to your Request for Information under RTI Act 2005, received vide letter dated 22/07/2023 and to say that
1) None in Civil Engineering Department.
2) None in Civil Engineering Department.
3) Most officers of this Department have worked at various outstation sites of SMPK for varying lengths of time.
4) The above locations are camp site offices of RT and Kolkata Divisions with headquarters at Kolkata and HRA in not related to any way with respect to posting at camp offices under RT and Kolkata Divisions. HRA will be paid @27% of the Basic Pay..
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Rahul Mukherjee, CPIO/Dy. Chief Engineer, Civil Engineering Department, Kolkata Port Trust. - through video-conferencing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information was not furnished by the PIO within stipulated time frame. He further stated that he received the reply from the PIO at this stage on 14.05.2024. He averred that PIO has not furnished complete information with respect to information sought at point No. 3 of the RTI Application. He stated that transfers of officers have not been made in uniform manner in Kolkata Port Trust. He stated that he was earlier transferred to Haldia. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 14.05.2024. He stated that the complete information has been furnished to the Appellant. Upon being queried regarding the reasons for delay in furnishing the reply, the PIO stated that the Appellant has sought voluminous and old record of almost 15-20 years which caused delay in furnishing the reply.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned Page 2 PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)