Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Shri V.K. Viswanathan vs Central Railway, Cst on 12 November, 2008

                        Central Information Commission
                                      *****

                                                        No.CIC/OK/A/2008/00454

                                                      Dated: 12 November 2008

Name of the Appellant              :       Shri V.K. Viswanathan
                                           DSTE (Conv), CPM's Office
                                           III Floor Parcel Office
                                           Wadibunder, Mumbai, 400010

Name of the Public Authority       :       Central Railway, CST


Background:

Shri V.K. Viswanathan of Wadibunder filed an RTI-application with the Public Information Officer, Central Railway, CSTM, on 5 October 2007, seeking information relating to withholding of one increment of the Applicant.

2. The PIO vide his letter dated 19 October 2007 replied to the RTI- application. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed an appeal with the first Appellate Authority on 22 October 2007 who vide his letter dated 21 November 2007 replied to it. Thereafter, the Appellant approached the Central Information Commission with a Second Appeal on 26 February 2008 which was registered in the Commission on 6 May 2008.

3. The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the matter on 5 November 2008.

4. Shri R.N. Varma, FA&CAO & PIO, Shri SMA Razi, DGM, Shri K.P. Razan, APO, Shri R.K. Sahu, EI and Shri S.V. Gotawade, Sr. SO (EG), represented the Respondents.

5. The Appellant, Shri V.K. Viswanathan, was present in person.

Decision:

6. The Commission heard both the sides and noted that the case basically dealt with the issue of the Appellant's claim that he should have received increments from back-date according to a circular issued by the Railway Board. The PIO's reply was a specific response to the RTI-application. The Appellant, however, went into First Appeal by stating a number of statements regarding the case with the request to the Respondents "to confirm whether the above statements is correct or not". This is obviously a too farfetched a case to come under the RTI-Act. The Commission is not to be treated as an extension counter of the public grievance cell of the Railways. However, since the Applicant has put in a representation about the denial of the benefits he is entitled to, the Commission directs the Respondents to open up the papers/files/service book dealing with this case for the Appellant's inspection. He is authorized to get photocopies of the documents that he desires after paying the fee prescribed in the RTI-Act. This may be done by 21 November 2008 after the two sides have fixed up a time mutually convenient.

7. The case is thus disposed of.

Sd/-

(O.P. Kejariwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

Sd/-
(G. Subramanian) Assistant Registrar Cc:
1. Shri V.K. Viswanathan, DSTE (Conv), CPM's Office, III Floor Parcel Office, Wadibunder, Mumbai, 400010
2. The Public Information Officer, Central Railway, General Manager's Office, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai
3. The Appellate Authority, Central Railway, General Manager's Office, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai
4. Officer Incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC