Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Col (Dr.) Ravi Kumar (Retd.) vs Department Of Posts on 24 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/2024/647306

 Col (Dr.) Ravi Kumar (Retd.)                                   ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
 CPIO:
 Department Of Posts,
 Jammu, J & K                                               ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 09.08.2024               FA      : 05.09.2024            SA     : 24.10.2024

 CPIO : 23.08.2024              FAO : 23.09.2024                Hearing : 15.10.2025


Date of Decision: 24.10.2025
                                        CORAM:
                                  Hon'ble Commissioner
                                _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                       ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.08.2024 seeking information as under:

"Payment details of Monthly family Pension and lumpsum payments from financial year 2015 to 2021 in respect of my expired mother Late Smt. JAI KISHORI expired on 04 Apr 2020 wife of Late Sh. Triloki Nath Bhat (Expired on 06 Jun 2015) Resident of Village:

Hanjiwera Bala, Tehsil: Pattan, Distt: Baramulla., Kashmir, Jammu and Kasmir, Pin 193121."

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"Information sought is not specific. In your application you have not mentioned details of office where pension received, designation of employee and office of working of an employee."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.09.2024 providing details as under:

"The additional information as asked by the concerned CPIO is given as under:- a) Last Office of working of the employee: Head Post Office, District Baramulla, Baramulla, Kashmir. b) Some of the privious postings: Samba (Jammu); Pattan, Sopore, Khwajabagh Baramulla, Handwara- all in Distt Baramulla; Drass (Kargil, Ladakh) , in various positions culminating into the post of PRI/Post Master. c) Office where Last Pension and Family Pension received: Post Office Pattan, Baramulla, Kashmir."

The FAA vide order dated 23.09.2024 stated that:

"It is observed that while the applicant has claimed to be the son of the deceased pensioner, he has not produced any documents establishing the claim.

Both the pensioner and his wife are expired as on date, the appellant is accordingly advised to take up the case with the office from where Late Smt. Jai Kishori was drawing the family pension, along with relevant documents."

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.10.2024 stating inter alia as under:

"a) It is submitted that proof of being son of the deceased father Late Triloki Nath and deceased mother Jai Kishori has already been provided in the RTI application with attachment of a copy of Ration Card issued by the Relief Commissioner Jammu. As additional proof, a copy of the Domicile Certificate of the applicant is attached."

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Shahnawaz Khan, APMG & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Appellant reiterated the grounds of second appeal as mentioned above.

7. The Respondent reiterated the FAA's order and submitted that - "Pension disbursement data is not centrally maintained by one CPIO but is handled by the concerned Head Post Office. Therefore, the appellant was advised to approach the concerned office along with the necessary records.

Further, pension payment details pertain to the financial transactions of a third party (even if deceased), and hence fall under the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless a larger public interest is established or the applicant is a legal heir with documentary proof. The RTI application did not enclose death certificates or proof of legal heirship at the initial stage.

The CPIO acted in good faith and in accordance with the RTI Act by informing the applicant about the deficiencies in his request. There was no malafide intention to deny information, but only practical difficulty in identifying the records.

Once the Appellant provides complete service details and proof of legal heirship, the concerned custodian office can trace and provide information as per the records and rules."

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the FAA's order and the CPIO's submissions at this stage leave for no scope of intervention in the matter. The Appellant is advised to pursue his grievance before the appropriate forum.

9. The Appellant is disposed of accordingly.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 24.10.2025 Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO O/o. The Chief Postmaster General, J & K Circle, APMG (Staff) & CPIO, Department Of Posts, Meghdoot Bhawan, Rail Head, Jammu, J & K-180012

2. Col (Dr.) Ravi Kumar (Retd.) Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)