Central Information Commission
P K Chatterje vs South Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 18 May, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/SERLK/A/2021/112309-UM
Mr.P K Chatterje
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
South Eastern Railway
Office of the Principal Chief Materials Manager,
11, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata- 700043
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.05.2022
Date of Decision : 18.05.2022
Date of RTI application 04.01.2021
CPIO's response 04.02.2021
Date of the First Appeal 15.02.2021
First Appellate Authority's response 26.02.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.03.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information on 04 points, as under;-
Page 1 of 3The CPIO vide letter dated 04.02.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 26.02.2021, also furnish a reply to the Appellant.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. P K Chatterje participated through AC, Respondent: Absent The Respondent remained absent during the hearing. Despite its continuous efforts, the Commission was not able to contact the Respondent.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding receiving his letter dated 05.11.2020 etc. He further stated that vide letter dated 28.01.2021, no correct reply has been furnished by the Respondent public authority. He alleged that he had been punished vide order dated 03.10.2008 with stoppage of increment for two years and but not affecting his Pensionery Benefit. He said that punishment order said that his pensionery benefits should not be hampered in any way. But due to a wrong calculation his increment was not provided to him, he said and added that it be restored to his last basic pay of Rs 17,940/- . He said his pensionery benefits should be re-circulated including his pension, DCRG, Page 2 of 3 leave salary along with all arrears. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent was not present to contest the submissions of the Appellant.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and furnish a detailed and an updated revised reply to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Commission further advises the Respondent public authority to look into the grievance of the Appellant in accordance with the extant guidelines, if necessary by calling the Appellant to their Office at a mutually convenient date and time to resolve the above said issue in a time bound manner, thus adhering to the law of natural justice.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवसं त्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पजं ीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 18.05.2022 Page 3 of 3