Central Information Commission
Suman Kumar vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 3 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NRALF/A/2024/607865
Suman kumar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Assistant Electrical Engineer/General,
Northern Railway, Divisional Office,
Firozepur - 152001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.06.2025
Date of Decision : 02.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 04.01.2024
First appeal filed on : 22.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 11.12.2023 seeking the following information:
"Respected sir, I am suman kumar ac technician working under SSE/AC/SVDK. In 2018 under letter no E-55/44/Tech- III/Ac/25%/IMQ/2018 helper to technician was made through Intermediate quota in air condition department. In that time Apprentice technician were given the benefit of overtime allowance during their training period. But when the vacancy arises again in 2021 As per letter No 759-E/2/IMQ/Ac/p-3 the apprentice technician in question was Page 1 of 4 cleared of giving overtime allowance during his training period. I have ask you to under the RTI act -2005 that (1) When the recruitment process and eligibility criteria are seme in both letters, then why overtime allowance was given in letter no E-55/44/Tech III/Ac/25%/IMQ/2018 Apprentice candidates, And overtime allowance not given those candidates who comes in letter no-759-E/2/IMQ/Ac/P-3? (2) If there is no provision of overtime allowance during the training of apprentice technician, then why has the letter not been issued by the department?
(3) If I mean that apprentice technician will be not given the benefit of overtime during their training period, then why has the overtime recovery of the candidate who come under the letter no E-55/44/Tech III/Ac/25%/IMQ/2018 not been done till now?"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 04.01.2024 stating as under:
"Your question is not clear You are requested to clarify your question as to what information you require so that appropriate response can be provided by this office."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 22.02.2024, held as under.
"This information you requested falls under a service matter."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
5. The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Amit Ranjan, Assistant Divisional Electrical Engineer (ADEE)- cum CPIO present through videoconference.
6. Written submission of the Respondent is taken on record.
7. The Respondent submitted that a reply has already been provided to the Appellant by the then CPIO and also his First Appeal was disposed of by the FAA vide order dated 22.02.2024.
Page 2 of 4Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the denial of information by the CPIO on all the points of RTI Application in one liner that "Your question is not clear...." is flawed. In addition to it, the vague denial of information by the FAA stating that it is a service related matter without substantiating the same under any relevant exemption clause of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act depicts that this case has been handled badly by the Respondent contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act. It is noted that both the CPIO and the FAA have not mentioned their names while replying to the RTI application and First Appeal which is in violation of the DoPT instructions issued vide Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR which appears to be deliberate because they knew they are furnishing bad reply.
9. The CPIO is expected to have applied his/her mind and should have facilitated relevant information as sought by the appellant by invoking Section 5(4) or Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Instead of doing the needful, the CPIOs washed their hands off by giving vague reply, which is not appreciated. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is allowed.
10. In view of the above, the Respondent is directed to re-examine the contents of RTI Application and provide a point-wise revised updated reply against all the points of RTI application along with relevant information as sought for after accessing the same from the concerned record holder under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act and provide the same directly to the Appellant, free of charge. This direction should be complied with by the Respondent within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order.
11. FAA to ensure compliance of the above directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 3 of 4 Copy To:
The FAA, Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer/ General, Northern Railway, Divisional Office, Firozpur - 152001 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)