Central Information Commission
G. R. Nishad vs Department Of Posts on 30 May, 2024
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. (As per Annexure)
G. R. Nishad ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
1. Department of Post
Raipur
2. Department of Post
Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh
3. Department of Post
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4. Department of Post
Bhilai, Chhattisgarh
5. Department of Post
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
S. File No. RTI CPIO FA FAO SA
No.
1. 106490 27.09.2022 12.10.2022 17.10.2022 Not on record 30.01.2023
2. 109033 27.09.2022 06.10.2022 11.10.2022 Not on record 16.02.2023
3. 107104 27.09.2022 30.09.2022 18.11.2022 Not on record 30.01.2023
4. 107105 27.09.2022 26.10.2022 09.11.2022 Not on record 30.01.2023
5. 106748 27.09.2022 28.10.2022 18.11.2022 Not on record 30.01.2023
Page 1 of 12
6. 106232 27.09.2022 21.10.2022 18.11.2022 Not on record 30.01.2023
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the same
subject matter
Date of Hearing: 22.05.2024
Date of Decision: 29.05.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI applications dated 27.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) निदे शालय के पत्र क्रमाां क 44-2/2011/ SBP II नदिाां क 5.05.2016, 7.12.2018, 18.11.2020 और 30.03.2021 के तहत् डाक सहायक / छटाई सहायक के पद पर सीधे भती हुए, पात्र सेवा निवृत कममचाररय ां की सांख्या, निन्हें उिके ढाई महीिे प्रनशक्षण अवनध क सेवा में ि ड़कर OTBP और BCR पद न्ननत में फायदा दे य है /था।
(ii) उक्त सांख्या में से नकतिे सेवा निवृत कममचाररय ां के मामल ां का निपटाि नकया गया है ?
(iii) शे ष सेवानिवृत्त कममचाररय ां के मामल ां में निपटाि की वतम माि स्थिनत क्या है ?
Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/106490
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
सूचिा निस स्वरूप में चाही गई है , वस्तुतः स्वरूप में सूचिा केन्द्रीय ििसूचिा अनधकारी के पास उपलब्ध िहीां है ।
कानममक ल क नशकायत और पेंशि मांत्रालय, कानममक और प्रनशक्षण नवभाग भारत सरकार के पत्र क्र.. 01/18/2011-IR नदिाां क 16.09.2011 के अिुसार सूचिा का अनधकार कायाम लयीि दस्तावेि ां की प्रमानणत छायाप्रनतयाां ही प्रदाि करिे का प्रावधाि है Page 2 of 12 नकसी प्रकार के सूचिा का सृिि करिे, व्याख्या करिे अथवा काल्पनिक प्रश्न के उत्तर नदया िािा अपेनक्षत िहीां है ।
2.1. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.10.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed second appeal dated 30.01.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/109033
3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. ऐसी क ई भी समेनकत िािकारी इस कायाम लय में उपलब्ध िहीां है । ii. निरां क iii. प्राप्त आवेदि एवां undertaking के आधार पर 20 निव्रत कममचाररय का प्रनशक्षण अवनध क ि ड़कर सांस नधत TBOP/BCR नतनथ गणिा कर दे य रानश के भुगताि की कायमवाही प्रनक्रया में है ।
3.1. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.10.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed second appeal dated 16.02.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/107104
4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. सांभाग में उक्त प्रकरण में कायमवाही िारी है । ii. सांभाग में उक्त प्रकरण में कायमवाही िारी है । वतम माि नतनथ तक उक्त प्रलाभ नकसी भी कममचारी क प्रदाि िहीां नकया गया है ।
iii. सांभाग में उक्त प्रकरण में कायमवाही िारी है ।
4.1. However, the appellant claimed that he had not received the reply. Dissatisfied with the same, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2022 which was not Page 3 of 12 adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed second appeal dated 30.01.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/107105
5. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
उपर क्त नवषयान्तगमत सूचिा का अनधकार अनधनियम 2005 के अांतगमत आपके द्वारा चाही गई िािकारी आरटीआई अनधनियम 2005 की धारा 3 से सांबांनधत िहीां ह िे के कारण प्रदाि िहीां की िा सकती है ।
5.1. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.11.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA did not dispose of the first appeal. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.01.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/106748
6. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. उक्त नबांदु में चाही गई िािकारी उपलब्ध िहीां है । ii. नबांदु क्रमाां क 1 के अिुसार उक्त नबांदु लागु िहीां ह ता I iii. नबांदु क्रमाां क 1 के अिुसार उक्त नबांदु लागु िहीां ह ता I 6.1. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed second appeal dated 30.01.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/106232
7. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. निरां क
Page 4 of 12
ii. निरां क
iii. निरां क
7.1. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed second appeal dated 30.01.2023.
Hearing Proceedings: (CIC/POSTS/A/2023/106490)
8. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Alok Nath, Head Post Office, attended the hearing through video conference.
8.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had claimed that the records regarding the disposal of complaints regarding entitlement for OTBP and BCR by Postal Assistants and sweeper/cleaner, were not maintained in the manner sought in the RTI application.
8.2. The respondent (Head Post Office, Raipur) while defending their case submitted that a total number of 9 complaints had been disposed of and 15 complaints were under process. However, the data was not available at the time of filing of the RTI application, during the pre-audit phase.
8.3. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent gave an updated response during the hearing bringing out the data in relation to the disposed and pending complaints. However, the same was not reflected in their written reply dated 12.10.2022. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to give revised information to the appellant, in lines of the oral submissions made during the hearing, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Hearing Proceedings: (CIC/POSTS/A/2023/109033)
9. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Brijesh Kishore Tiwari, Inspector of Posts, attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 5 of 129.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had claimed that the records regarding the disposal of complaints regarding entitlement for OTBP and BCR by Postal Assistants and sweeper/cleaner, were not maintained in the manner sought in the RTI application.
9.2. The respondent (Rail Dak Seva, Raipur) while defending their case submitted that there was no consolidated data regarding complaints disposed of by them and few of the complaints filed with them, were under process.
9.3. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent confirmed that there was no consolidated data with respect to the information sought in the RTI application. That being so, and the data not being maintained in due course of business and operations, the CPIO cannot be compelled to create or collate data in accordance with the RTI request. There appears to be scope for further intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Hearing Proceedings: CIC/POSTS/A/2023/107104
10. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Sunil Kumar, Assistant Suptd. of Posts, Bastar, attended the hearing through video conference.
10.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had claimed that the records regarding the disposal of complaints regarding entitlement for OTBP and BCR by Postal Assistants and sweeper/cleaner, were not maintained in the manner sought in the RTI application. Moreover, he claimed that he had not received the enclosure/reply dated 30.09.2022.
10.2. The respondent (Department of Posts, Bastar) while defending their case submitted that there was no consolidated data regarding complaints disposed of by them and few of the complaints filed with them, were under process.
10.3. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent confirmed that there was no consolidated data with respect to the information sought in the RTI application. That Page 6 of 12 being so, and the data not being maintained in due course of business and operations, the CPIO cannot be compelled to create or collate data in accordance with the RTI request. However, the appellant claimed that he had not received the reply dated 30.09.2022. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to send a copy of their reply dated 30.09.2022 to the appellant again, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Hearing Proceedings: CIC/POSTS/A/2023/107105
11. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Holiram Sahoo, Bilaspur Suptd. of Posts, attended the hearing through video conference.
11.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had claimed that the records regarding the disposal of complaints regarding entitlement for OTBP and BCR by Postal Assistants and sweeper/cleaner, were not maintained in the manner sought in the RTI application.
11.2. The respondent (Department of Posts, Bilaspur) while defending their case submitted that there was no consolidated data regarding complaints disposed of by, at time of receipt of the RTI application. However, they had compiled data and 56 complaints had been received and were under process of disposal. They further informed that temporary staff were engaged in the posts of Postal Assistants and sweeper.
11.3. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent gave an updated response during the hearing bringing out the data in relation to the disposed and pending complaints. However, the same was not reflected in their written reply dated 26.10.2022. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to give revised information to the appellant, in lines of the oral submissions made during the hearing, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Hearing Proceedings CIC/POSTS/A/2023/106748:
12. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Ms. Pooja Tiwari, Deputy Suptd. of Posts, attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 7 of 1212.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had claimed that the records regarding the disposal of complaints regarding entitlement for OTBP and BCR by Postal Assistants and sweeper/cleaner, were not maintained in the manner sought in the RTI application.
12.2. The respondent (Department of Posts, Durg) while defending their case submitted that there was no consolidated data regarding complaints disposed of by, at time of receipt of the RTI application. They had communicated the same to the appellant on 28.10.2022. Further, upon receipt of the hearing notice, revised information as per the latest data was given to the appellant on 15.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:
"उउउउ उउउउउ उउउ उउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउउउउउ उउ उउउउ उउउउउउउ उउ उउउउउउ उउउउ उउउउउ उउउउ उउउउउउउ उउ तहत उउ उउउउउ उउउउ उउउउउ उउउ उउउउउ / / उउउउ उउउउउ उउ = उउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउउ गई उउ उउउउउउउ OTBP (उउ उउ असल उउउ TBOP उउउउ उउउउ उउउउउउउ) और BCR उउउउउउउउ उउउ उउउउउ उउउ उउ/उउ | उउउउउउ इस उउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउउउउ उउ उउउ कर उउउउउउ उउ उउउ उउ उउउउ कर उउउउ उउउउउउउउउउ उउ रख - उउउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउउउ | इस उउउउउउउ उउउ इस उउउउउ उउ उउउउउ DDO उउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउउ उउउ उउउउउउउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउउ उउ उउ उउउउ उउउउ उउउ इस उउउउउउ उउ उउउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउउउउउउउ उउउउउउउ उउ गई उउउ उउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउउ उउ उउउउ उउउउउ उउउ उउउउ गई उउउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउउउउउउउ उउउउउउउ उउ गई उउउ उउ उउउउ उउउउउ उउउ उउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउ गई उउउउउउउ उउउउउ उउउउउउउ । उउउ उउउउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउ उउउउउउउ उउउ उउ, उउ उउउउ उउउउउ उउउ उउउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउ उउउउ यह उउउउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउउउउउउउ उउउउउउउ उउ गई।
उउउउ उउउउउ उउउ उउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउ गई उउउउउउउ उउउउउ उउउउउउउ । उउउ उउउउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउ उउउउउउउ उउउ उउ, उउ उउउउ उउउउउ उउउ Page 8 of 12 उउउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउ उउउउ यह उउउउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउउउउउउउ उउउउउउउ उउ गई "।
12.3. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent gave an updated response vide letter dated 15.05.2024. The CPIO confirmed that they had received representations/complaints regarding promotion as well as benefits of OTBP and they are under process. However, copy of the letter dated 15.05.2024 was not sent to the appellant. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to provide copy of the reply dated 15.05.2024 to the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Hearing Proceedings CIC/POSTS/A/2023/106232:
13. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Holiram Sahoo, Bilaspur Suptd. of Posts, attended the hearing through video conference.
13.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had claimed that the records regarding the disposal of complaints regarding entitlement for OTBP and BCR by Postal Assistants and sweeper/cleaner, were not maintained in the manner sought in the RTI application.
13.2. The respondent (Department of Posts, Raigarh) while defending their case submitted that there was no consolidated data regarding complaints disposed of by, at time of receipt of the RTI application. The CPIO further informed that they have collected the data from Ambikapur and Raigarh Region, as per which a total of 14 individuals had been given the benefit of TBOP and BCR. The reply dated 21.05.2024 is extracted below:
"इस उउउउउउउउ उउ उउउउउउ उउउउउउउ B1-/Counting Trg Period/2016/2023 Raigarh dt 21/09/2023 उउ तहत उउउ 23 उउउउउउउउउउउ उउउउउउउउउउउ उउ उउउ उउउउउ उउ उउउउउउउउउ उउउउ उउ उउउउ उउउ उउउउउउ TBOP + BCR Page 9 of 12 उउउउउउउउ उउ उउउ उउउउ उउ उउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउ उउउउ उउउ (उउउउउउ 01.03.2022 उउ उउउउउउ उउउउउ उउ उउउउउउ उउउउउ उउ उउउउउउ उउउउउउ 08 उउउउउउउउउउउ उउउउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउउ उउ उउउ गए ) उउउउ 14 उउउउउउउउउउउ उउउउउउउउउउउ उउ उउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउउ उउउउउउ उउ उउ उउउ उउ | उउउउउउउउ उउउउउउउउ उउउउउउउउ उउउउ उउउउउउउ उउ 1/Counting Trg Period/2016/2023/Raigarh dt 21.09.2023 उउ उउउउउउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउउ उउ उउउउउउउ उउउ 14 उउउउउउउउउउउ उउउउउउउउउउउ उउ उउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउउ उउउउउउउउउ उउउ उउउउउ कर उउउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउ (उउउ) उउ उउउउउ उउ उउउउ उउ उउउ उउउ उउउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउ उउउउउउउ उउउ उउउउउउउउउउउ उउ Option form व Undertaking form उउउउउउउ उउउउ उउउ उउ उउउउउउउ उउउउउउउउउ उउउ उउउउउ कर उउउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउ (उउउ) उउ उउउउउ उउउउ उउउ उउउउ उउउउउउउ, उउउउ 4-2/TBOP-BCR/Pre- Audit/24-25 उउउउउउ उउउउउउ 21.05.2024 उउ उउउउउउ उउ उउउउउउ 21.05.2024 उउ उउ उउउउउउउउउउउ उउउउउउउउ (उउउउउउउ उउउउउ उउउउउउउ, उउउउ उउउउउ उउउउ उउउउउउ उउउ दरस उउउ उउउउउउउ) उउ उउउउउउउउउ उउउ उउउउउ कर उउउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउ (उउउ) उउ उउउउ उउउ उउ। उउउ उउउउउउउउउउउ उउउउउउउउ उउ उउउउउउउउ उउउ उउउउउउ 31.05.2024 तक शत उउउउउउउ Page 10 of 12 उउउउउ कर उउउउ उउउउ उउउउ उउउउउउ उउउउ (उउउ) उउ उउउउ उउउउउ"
13.3. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent gave an updated response vide letter dated 21.05.2024. The CPIO confirmed that they had received representations/complaints regarding promotion as well as benefits of OTBP and they are under process. However, copy of the letter dated 21.05.2024 was not sent to the appellant. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to provide copy of the reply dated 21.05.2024 to the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंिी रामललंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक/Date: 29.05.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनगल एस एस निकारा, (ररटायर्ग) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO O/o. The Superintendent of Rail Mail Service, Suptd., & CPIO, R. P. Division, Second Floor, Ganj Post Office Bhawan, Station Road, Raipur Chattisgarh-492009
2. The CPIO O/o. the Senior Postmaster, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Head Post Office, Raipur - 492001 Page 11 of 12
3. The CPIO O/o. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Department of Posts, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, Chhattigarh-494001
4. The CPIO O/o. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Department of Posts, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh-495001
5. The CPIO O/o. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sr. Supdt. & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Department of Posts, Durg Division, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh-490006
6. The CPIO O/o. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Supdt. & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Department Of Posts, Raigarh Division, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh-496001 Annexure of Second Appeal Nos.
1. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/106490
2. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/109033
3. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/107104
4. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/107105
5. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/106748
6. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/106232 Page 12 of 12 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)