Central Information Commission
Ashish Kumar vs Department Of Posts on 12 October, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/POSTS/A/2022/148540
Ashish Kumar .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Assistant Director General-(S.P.G.-I),
Department of Posts-India (Ministry of Communications),
S.P.G.-I Division, Dak Bhawan, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001.
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Assistant Director-(S.G.P.-II), Department
of Posts-India (Ministry of Communications),
S.G.P.-II Division, Dak Bhawan, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001.
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Section Officer-(RTI Section), Department of Posts
(Ministry of Communications), R.T.I. Section,
Room No.-324, Dak Bhawan, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.04.2022
CPIO replied on : 17.05.2022
First appeal filed on : 13.06.2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Second Appeal received at CIC : 12.10.2022
Date of Hearing : 12.10.2023
Date of Decision : 12.10.2023
Page 1 of 5
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
1. Please provide copy of all applications for granting Study Leave from IPOS Gr. A officers from 01.01.2017 till date.
2. Please provide the copy of orders in which application for granting Study Leave received from IPOS Gr. A officers were approved by competent authority from 01.01.2017 till date.
3. Please provide the copy of orders in which application for granting Study Leave received from IPOS Gr. A officers were rejected by competent authority from 01.01.2017 till date.
4. Please provide the details of number of applications received for granting study leave, number of cases in which study leave application has been approved and rejected by competent authority from 01.01.2017 till date.
5. Please provide the details of Appellate Authority in case of denial of study leave by competent authority.
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 17.05.2022, as under:
Hag plus no application of study leave received in this grade during the desired period.
HAG 3officers were granted study leave in this grade during the desired period. when study leave was granted, these officers were in SAG , now at present they are in HAG.
Sag officers were granted study leave in this grade during the desired period.
Jag grade one application has been received for granting study leave in this grade which is being examined.
STS/ITS1 officer has been granted study leave in this grade. Their study leave applications and approvals granted to these officers cannot be disclosed as these are their personal information. • Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 13.06.2022.Page 2 of 5
• Written submission has been received from the Additional Director and FAA vide letter dated 09.10.2023 as under:
In this context. it is intimated that the RTI application of the applicant was duly replied by CPIO vide reply dated 17.05.2022 within timelines specified under Section 7(l) of RTI Act, 2005. The copies of study leave applications and related orders were denied to the applicant under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 as the same may contain personal information of the applying officers such as their residential/ permanent address' personal contact details and their social category etc. It may also be noted that applicant had sought data for five years which was in scattered form in different files and providing the same may have involved disproportionate diversion of resources under Section 7 (9) of RTI Act,2005.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. O P Pokharial (AD) Appellant has not availed the opportunity of hearing despite service of notice.
Upon the Commissions instance, the CPIO has submitted that they have provided a reply vide letter dated 17.05.2022 and a copy of written submission has been submitted for the perusal of the Commission. He further affirmed that he would abide by the orders of the Commission.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 Page 3 of 5 has been provided by the Respondent. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 5 Page 5 of 5