Central Information Commission
Jamni Devi vs Central Coalfield Limited on 9 December, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCFLT/A/2020/125480
Jamni Devi ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Coalfield Ltd.,
RTI Cell, PO-Bermo, District-Bokaro,
Jharkhand - 829104. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08/12/2021
Date of Decision : 08/12/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/05/2020
CPIO replied on : 20/06/2020
First appeal filed on : 22/06/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/08/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.05.2020 seeking information as follows;1
"My husband late Bimal Ram who was an employee of K.M.P. and expired on 01.04.2018 while in service and soon after his death our son Prakash had been applied to the CCL Management for compassionate appointment, under the ambit of definition of "dependent" as mentioned under NCWA. In this regard, provide the following information;
1. Please furnish me the current status of my application dated 07.05.20 for compassionate appointment in place of my deceased husband. (Photocopy Attached).
2. Certified Copy of office order issued for struck of name from company roll of late Bimal Ram Sobel operator of KMP B&K Area.
3. Certified copy of 1-3 page of service sheet of my deceased husband along with service sheet exerts, LTC option form, LTC/LLTC Which had availed by my husband late BimalRam along with, Form- F & Form - A.
4. Certified Copy of police inquiry report if it is available from the S.P. Office."
The CPIO furnished reply along with the relevant information against point No. 1 of the RTI application to the appellant on 20.06.2020 and with regard to points No. 2 to 4:- information was denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.06.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, theappellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Rajiv Kumar, SOP &PIO present through video-conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the hearing notice served to the Appellant has been received back undelivered with the remarks "addressee could not located". For the said reasons, due efforts were also made to contact the Appellant telephonically, however her mobile number available on record remained unanswerable and therefore, the Commission deems it fit to decide the case on merits based on the strength of material on record.2
The PIO while narrating the factual background submitted that the Appellant has filed an application with the Respondent office claiming compassionate employment of her son on demise of her husband. He further submitted that upon verification of credentials, it came to the notice that the Appellant had separated from her late husband and had remarried . Lastly, he added that a reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant as is evinced from the letter dated 23.09.2020.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
In view of above, no further relief is pertinent in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3