Central Information Commission
Mr.Rajuramprasad vs Ministry Of Railways on 1 February, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/001312
Date of Hearing : February 1, 2011
Date of Decision : February 1, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Rajuram Prasad
Nanak Ward
Near Dhakka
PO - Bina
Sagar District
Madhya Pradesh
The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Respondents
The Public Information Officer
Ministry of Railway
EDPCI & PIOVII
Railway Board
Rail Bhawan
New Delhi
Represented by : Shri D.V.Rao, APIO, Shri M.K.Meena, DDE(N) and Ms.Sonali Chaturvedi, DDF(E)
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
All available information has been provided .
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/001312
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.12.4.10 with the PIO, Ministry of Railways seeking information against six points related to the retirement benefits and pension that after a person is medically decategorized and also sought other information on similar issues. The PIO replied on 1.6.10 furnishing information against points 2 and 4 while enclosing a copy of the Railway Board's letter dt.29.4.1999. On 15.6.10, the information against point 3 was provided. Being aggrieved with the replies, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.23.8.10 before CIC stating that he does not agree with the information provided against points 2 and 4 and that no information has been provided against points 5 and 6.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that information against point 5 was provided on 9.7.10 and information against point 6 on 23.8.10 which included the Railway Board's letter regarding payment of honorarium to Yoga instructors engaged through local agencies. He added that the same was provided once again a day before the date of hearing.
3. The Commission after hearing the submissions observed that the Appellant is only seeking interpretation of rules in hypothetical situations in points 2 and 4 of the RTI application and holds that the Public Authority is under no obligation to interpret rules under the RTI Act. The Commission holds that all available information has been provided and accordingly disposes of the appeal and closes the case at the Commission's end.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Rajuram Prasad Nanak Ward Near Dhakka PO - Bina Sagar District Madhya Pradesh
2. The Public Information Officer Ministry of Railway EDPCI & PIOVII Railway Board Rail Bhawan New Delhi
3. Officer Incharge, NIC