Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

E. Marthal vs Department Of Posts on 6 October, 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/2024/127397

E. Marthal                                                       ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
CPIO: Department of Post,
Chennai                                                    ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 04.06.2024               FA       : 07.07.2024             SA     : 22.08.2024

CPIO : 28.06.2024              FAO : Not on record               Hearing : 22.09.2025


Date of Decision:06.10.2025
                                         CORAM:
                                   Hon'ble Commissioner
                                 _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                        ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. I, (Smt. E. Marthal) was employed as OS at the Mail Motor Service (MMS) at the Chennai Circle Post Office from the year 1997-1998. I request that details about date my service/tenure with the MMS may please be provided.

2. Please also provide details of remuneration paid to me during my service with MMS.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

1. As the required information is more than 20 years old, the same could not be traceable.

2. In view of reply no. 1, the detail could not be provided.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.07.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 22.08.2024.

5. The appellant appeared through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Ram Nivas Chandra, Senior Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that she worked as an employee in MMS in temporary post and sought information about her details for the years 1997/1998, viz remuneration paid to her and the details/duration of her employment and the same were not provided by the respondent.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that there is no sanctioned post of OS in the establishment of Mail Motor Service, Chennai and therefore, it is not possible to employ anyone as OS from 1997/1998. The respondent has further submitted that the first appeal of the appellant has not been received in their office and hence no reply was given by the FAA. Written submission dated 13.09.2025 filed by the respondent is taken on record and relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:

"The reply given to the appellant is correct. Since there is no sanctioned post of OS in the Establishment of Mail Motor Service (MMS), Chennai. Therefore, it is not possible to employed anyone as a OS in this office from 1997/1998. Here the applicant has simply stated as employed as OS from 1997/1998 and has not specifically mentioned about her cadre. As such the records could not be traced and not available since it is more than 20 years.

The applicant has stated that she had preferred a first appeal dated 07.07.2024 to the First Appellate Authority, Director of Postal Service, O/o the Chief Postmaster General, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai-600002. The statement of the appellant in her Second appeal that she had preferred a first appeal is factually not correct, since no first appeal was received in the office of the designated Appellate Authority. The copy of letter no: ML/RTI Appeal/2024 dated 12.09.2025 is enclosed for ready reference."

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO did not give an appropriate reply to the appellant vide reply dated 28.06.2024. The initial stand of the CPIO was that the sought information could not be traced as it is 20 years old but on contrary stated during the hearing that no such sanctioned post of OS existed in the establishment of MMS, Chennai vide written submission dated 13.09.2025. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to file an affidavit to that effect before the Commission, affirming their stand of denying the appellant's claim of having worked as OS in MMS, Chennai with a copy served on the appellant's phone number 9080****** (as mentioned in second appeal) & her address, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 06.10.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Page 3 of 4 Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO O/o. The Senior Manager, Mail Motor Services, CPIO, Department Of Posts, No. -37, Greams Road, Chennai-600006 2 E. Marthal Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)