Central Information Commission
Mrravi Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 31 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.6, Club Building ,Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi110067, Tel No.01126182597,26182598
Complaint No.: CIC/VS/C/2014/000152/BJ
Complainant: SHRI RAVI KUMAR
HOUSE NO.153 C
BATHINDIA
MOHALLA NABHA147 201, PUNJAB
Respondent: CPIO
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (LAW)
HEADQUARTER OFFICE
NORTHERN RAILWAY
BARODA HOUSE
NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing : 31/05/2016
Date of Decision : 31/05/2016
Date of filing of RTI application 04.12.2013
CPIO's response 30.01.2014 (Transfer)
Date of filing the First appeal Not on record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of filing complaint before the Commission 21.02.2014
O R D E R
FACTS:
Page 1 of 3
The complainant had sought the following information:
"According to rules and guidelines of railways in which categories of Railways Jobs have been given on compassionate grounds please specify the categories;
How many number of accident victims dependents have received jobs in the class C category of railways during the 1999 to 2013 years just send the numbers;
How many number of accident victims dependents have received jobs in the class C or Class B category of railways during the 2001 to 2013 years by the orders of different courts of Tribunals such as CAT just send the numbers;
How many number of accident victims dependents have received jobs in the class C category of railways during the 2000 to 2013 years by the orders of different courts of Tribunals such as CAT just send the numbers; and How many number of accident victims dependents have received job in the railways even after submitting the letters 3 to 7 years later from the accident happened date JUST send the numbers only."
The CPIO vide his letter dated 30/01/2014 transferred the application to (1) 1st Appellate Authority/PersonnelcumCPIO/IR, Baroda House, New Delhi and (2) 1st AAcumANRM, New Delhi, FZR, LKO, UMB & MB for direct disposal and copy of the same was endorsed to the complainant.
The complainant had not received any reply from the CPIO thereafter. There is nothing on record to show that he had filed any first appeal before the FAA or the latter has issued any orders in this regard.
Aggrieved by the nonfurnishing of information by the CPIO, the complainant filed this complaint before the Commission for providing the same information as sought in his RTI application.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Rohtash Kumar, OS (M:9911522941); Mr. Raman Kumar Sharma, Dy. CPO/R (M:9717630620) and Mr. Harjit Kumar, APO/MB (M:9760534622);Mr. Vinod Kumar, CS&WLI Ambala(M:9729535970); Mrs. Aruna Ahuja, COS(Legal Cell) Delhi Division DRM Office (M:9868819828);Page 2 of 3
The complainant remained absent during the hearing. The respondent, Ambala stated that on point no. 01 & 02 the complainant had been replied on 17/01/2014 giving replies to the RTIs filed by the complainant on 28/11/2013 Reg. No.62709, 28/11/2013 Regn. No. 62712, 29/11/2013 Regn. No. 62756, 04/12/2013 Regn. No. 62839. He also referred to the judgment pronounced by CIC vide appeal no. CIC/VS/C/2014/000308 dated 17/09/2015 on similar matter wherein the same complainant was absent during the hearing. The representative of the respondents submitted a list of 13 RTI application filed by the same complainant on similar matters that had been attended to by their office.
The respondent, Baroda House, New Delhi stated that in reply to an earlier RTI application dated 18/08/2013 having similar queries the information was given to the complainant on 11/11/2013. The representative of DRM's office, NR, New Delhi made a written submission enclosing a copy sent to the complainant explaining the policy adopted by the M/o Railways with regard to compensation to accident victims under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
The complainant was not present to contest the submissions of the respondents or substantiate his claim.
DECISION:
Considering the facts of the case and the documents available on the record, as also the submissions made by the respondents highlighting the different aspects of the RTI application and the responses provided by them, the Commission is convinced that due diligence had been carried out by the respondents in answering various queries of the complainant on similar subjects. No further intervention of the Commission is warranted.
The complaint stands dismissed.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 3