Central Information Commission
Balu Tukaram Joshi vs Central Railway on 26 February, 2026
के ीयसू चनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos.: CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/123746; CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124415;
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124895; CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/125680;
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126589
Balu Tukaram Joshi .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
C.P.I.O,
CENTRAL RAILWAY
O/o the Divisional Railway Manager (Admin.),
Mumbai CSMT - 400 001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25-02-2026
Date of Decision : 25-02-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das
The above-mentioned Second Appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common, and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/123746
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10-04-2024
CPIO replied on : 10-05-2024
First appeal filed on : 03-06-2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 21-06-2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19-07-2024
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/123746 Page 1 of 13
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124415
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124895
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/125680
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126589
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10-04-2024 seeking the following information:
"1. NO :- BB/NE/KYN/00 ऑिफस ऑडर NO : 51/2021 यह िकस िनयम के अंतगत ऑडर बनी ई हे इसके बारे म जानकारी िदया जाए
2. NO :- BB/NE/KYN/ADEN-PNM(NRMU) हो ऑिफस ऑडर NO : 51/2021 यह िकस िनयम के अंतगत हो ई हे इसके बारे म जानकारी िदया जाए
3. हो ऑिफस ऑडर NO : 51/2021 यह ऑडर पे MATE का काय करने के िलए स म हे या नही इसके बारे म जानकारी िदया जाए
4. िनयम का उ ंघन वा हे तो कोण कोण सी कायवाही होगी इसके बारे म जानकारी िदया जाए
5. कायवाही करनी हो तो िकस अिधकारी से संपक करना होगा इसके बारे म जानकारी िदया जाए"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10-05-2024 stating as under:
"(Reply) -When an applicant who is a Railway employee and is seeking information. Which can be accessed through internal mechanism prevailing within the organization, it can be termed as misuse of RTI Act-
05. In Decision No.883/IC(A)/2007 dated 14.06.2007 passed by the Hon'ble CIC in Dr. K. C. Vijaykumaran Nair Vs. Department of Posts, it was held that the Information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decision of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. Hence, the information sought cannot be provided."
3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03-06-2024. The F.A.A upheld the reply of C.P.I.O vide order dated 21-06-2024.
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/123746 Page 2 of 13CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124415 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124895 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/125680 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126589
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124415 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29-04-2024 CPIO replied on : 29-05-2024 First appeal filed on : 13-06-2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 28-06-2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22-07-2024 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29-04-2024 seeking the following information:
"1. भारतीय रे ल SSE PWI म काय करने वाले टै क मन की बदली मोषन के िबना िकस िनयम के अंतगत बदली की जाती ह।
2. भारतीय रे ल SSE PWI म काय करने वाले टै क मन की बदली करनी हो तो टै क मन से ईछु क प लेने चािहए या नही. िनयम के तहत जानकरी िदया जाए।
3. GENERAL HOLIDAY. FOR OPEN LINE म काय करने वाले टै क मन कमचारी साल म 12 छु ी िदया जाती हे तो SSE PWI ओर JE अपने मन से गग यूिनट मे िकस को दे ना हे खुद िनिचत करे गा या नही. िनयम के तहत जानकरी दे ने का क करे ।
4. GENERAL HOLIDAY FOR OPEN LINE म काय करने वाले टै क मन कमचारी साल म 12 छु ी िदया जाती हे तो कोनसी भी छु ी र करनी हो तो िकस पद का आिधकारी वह र कर सकता ह।
5. GENERAL HOLIDAY FOR OPEN LINE मे काय करने वाले टै क मन कमचारी को रे े के काय पे बुलाना हो तो िकन िकन प रसितिथ म बुलाया जा सकता ह।
6. GENERAL HOLIDAY. FOR OPEN LINE म छु ी के िदन म गग (यूिनट) म SSE PWI रे ल की सुर ा के हेतु कोण कोण रखेगा ओर िकस पद का टै क मन सुर ा हेतु रहे गा।"CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/123746 Page 3 of 13
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124415 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124895 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/125680 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126589
6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 29-05-2024 stating as under:
"When an applicant who is a Railway employee and is seeking information Which can be accessed through internal mechanism prevailing within the Organization, it can be termed as misuse of RTI Act-05. In Decision No.883/IC(A)/2007 dated 14.06.2007 passed by the Hon'ble CIC in Dr. K. C. Vijaykumaran Nair vs. Department of Posts, it was held that the Information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not Expected to question the decision of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. Hence, the information Sought cannot be provided."
7. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13-06-2024. The F.A.A upheld the reply of C.P.I.O vide order dated 28-06-2024.
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124895 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26-03-2024 CPIO replied on : 26-04-2024 First appeal filed on : 10-05-2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 07-06-2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29-07-2024 Information sought:
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26-03-2024 seeking the following information:
"1. व र खंड अिभयंता (SSE PWI) यूिनट सभी कमचारी टै क मन रे े के काय के िलए आठ घंटे उप ीत हे तो अिधकारी (JE) िकतणे घंटे के िलए यूिनट मे उप ीत रहगे CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/123746 Page 4 of 13 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124415 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124895 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/125680 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126589
2. व र खंड अिभयंता (SSE PWI) मे सभी अिधकारी यूिनट की नाईट ॉक हो तो यूिनट मे उप ीत रहेगा या िजस जगह टै क के संभ त ॉक हे वह पर सड़क ारा जा के उप ीत रहेगा
3. रे े मे टै क के संभ त िबना संर न (PROTECTION) कोण कोण से काम िकए जाते हे इनके बारे म जानकारी िदया जाए।
4. ॉक के काय मे िकतने आदमी संर न (PROTECTION) के िलए कम से कम िकतने आदमी रखे जाते हे ।
5. रे े TRACK MASHINE ॉक मे काय करे गी तो कोनसे लाइन संर न (PROTECTION) करना चािहए या दोनों लाइन का करना पड़े गा इसके बारे म जानकारी दे ने का क करे ।
6. व र खंड अिभयंता (SSE PWI ओर JE) जानेवारी से िडसबर तक लंच सहेत डु ी िकतने घंटे की होती हे ।"
10. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26-04-2024 stating as under:
"When an applicant who is a Railway employee and is seeking information which can be accessed through internal mechanism prevailing within the organization, it can be termed as misuse of RTI Act-05. In Decision No.883/IC(A)/2007 dated 14.06.2007 passed by the Hon'ble CIC in Dr. K. C. Vijaykumaran Nair Vs. Department of Posts, it was held that the information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decision of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. Hence, the information sought cannot be provided."
11. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10-05-2024. The F.A.A upheld the reply of C.P.I.O vide order dated 07-06-2024.
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/123746 Page 5 of 13CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124415 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124895 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/125680 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126589
12. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/125680 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10-04-2024 CPIO replied on : 13-05-2024 First appeal filed on : 03-06-2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 20-06-2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05-08-2024 Information sought:
13. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10-04-2024 seeking the following information:
"1. भारतीय रे े म काय करणे वाले कमचारी डू ी आते समय िकसी कमचारी दु घटना या चोट लग जायेगी तो वह IOD का वधान ले सकता है ।
2. भारतीय रे े म जानेवारी से िडसबर तक टॅ क मन की लंच सहत डू टटी िकतणे घंटे की होती है ।
3. भारतीय रे े म सहायक मंडल अिभयंता (ADEN) टॅ क मन मुकदम (MATE) की िनयु व र 2800 टॅ क मन पर की जाएगी या सहायक मंडल अिभयंता (ADEN) के पास िवशेष अिधकार ह की वह किन 2800 टॅ क मन को भी मुकदम (MATE) बनाया जा सकता ह तो इसे िकस िनयम मे बनाया जायेगे इसके बारे म जानकारी दे ने का क करे ।
4. भारतीय रे े म व र खंड अिभयंता (SSE PWI) ऑिफस मे टॅ क मन को ऑिफस का काय करने के िलए रखा जा सकता है तो कोन सा वड अिधकारी हे वह िनयु कर सकता हे ।
5. भारतीय रे े म व र खंड अिभयंता (SSE PWI) ऑिफस मे टॅ क मन को ऑिफस का काय करने के िलए रखा जा सकता है तो RISK AND HARDSHIP ALLOWANCE का ावधान ले सकता है तो िनयमावली िदया जाए।CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/123746 Page 6 of 13
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124415 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124895 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/125680 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126589
6. भारतीय रे े म टॅ क मन जो टॅ क पर काय करने के िलए िनयु हे पर िकसी भी पद के व र अिधकारी ह वह अपने घर के काय के िलए टॅ क मन रख सकता है तो िकतने आदमी रख सकता हे इसके तहत िनयम के तहत जानकारी दी जाए।"
14. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13-05-2024 stating as under:
"When an applicant who is a Railway employee and is seeking information Which can be accessed through internal mechanism prevailing within the organization, it can be termed as misuse of RTI Act-05. In Decision No.883/IC(A)/2007 dated 14.06.2007 passed by the Hon'ble CIC in Dr. K. C. Vijaykumaran Nair Vs. Department of Posts, it was held that the Information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decision of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. Hence, the information sought cannot be provided."
15. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03-06-2024. The F.A.A upheld the reply of C.P.I.O vide order dated 20-06-2024.
16. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126589 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26-03-2024 CPIO replied on : 26-04-2024 First appeal filed on : 10-05-2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 07-06-2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12-08-2024 Information sought:CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/123746 Page 7 of 13
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124415 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124895 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/125680 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126589
17. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26-03-2024 seeking the following information:
"1. 09/11/2021 ऑिफस ऑडर नं 44/2021 यह िकस िनयम के तहत बदली की गई हे इसकी िनयमावली दे ने की क करे ।
2. ऑिफस ऑडर नं 44/2021 यह ऑडर को समय सीमा की िनयमावली की जानकारी िदया जाए।
3. बदली करने से पहले आपके िवभाग को आडर के संदभ म पहले लेटर बदली के िलए िदया गए था। वह लेटर िदया जाए।
4. यं की इ ा ना होने के बाद िकन िकन िनयम के अंतगत बदली की जाती है इसके बारे म जानकारी दे ने का क करे ।
5. ऑिफस आडर ने 44/2021 यह आडर की समय सीमा समा हो गए है तो (Travelling allowance) के िलए हक़दार होगा की नहीं इसके बारे मे िनयम के तहत जानकारी दे ने का क करे ।
6. Temporary basis म Service Record बुक वािशंद से िभवडी म ह ात रत िकन िनयम के अंतगत होता है इसके बारे म जानकारी दे ने का क करे ।
7. Temporary basis म Service Record िकस िदनां क को भेज़ी गई हे इसके बारे म जानकारी दे ने का क करे ।
8. 09/11/2021 ऑिफस ऑडर नं 44/2021 यह ऑडर Temporary basis म भेज युवा आदमी पूव प म कायरत था वही जाएगा या सहायक मंडल अिभयंता (NE) अपने मन से कही भी भेज सकता है इसकी बारे जानकारी दे ने का क करे ।
9 जब आपको लगता हे की ऑिफस ऑडर नं 44/2021 की यह ऑडर िनयम का उलंघन व हे तो कोण कोण सी काय वही होगी इसके बारे मे जानकारी दी जाए।CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/123746 Page 8 of 13
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124415 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124895 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/125680 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126589 10 कायवही करनी हो ता िकस अिधकारी से संपक करना पड़े गा इसके बार म जानकारी दे ने क करे ।"
18. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26-04-2024 stating as under:
"When an applicant who is a Railway employee and is seeking information which can be accessed through internal mechanism prevailing within the organization, it can be termed as misuse of RTI Act-05. In Decision No.883/IC(A)/2007 dated 14.06.2007 passed by the Hon'ble CIC in Dr. K. C. Vijaykumaran Nair Vs. Department of Posts, it was held that the information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decision of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. Hence, the information sought cannot be provided."
19. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10-05-2024. The F.A.A upheld the reply of C.P.I.O vide order dated 07-06-2024.
20. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Deorao Piperde, Assistant Divisional Engineer & authorized representative of the PIO present through Video-Conference.
21. Written submissions of the Respondent filed in all five cases of the Appellant is taken on record and the relevant extracts of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/123746 Page 9 of 13CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124415 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124895 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/125680 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126589 "1. The applicant is Trackman presently working under Sr. DEN (Co) & PIO. Being an employee, the applicant has all internal mechanism in the Railway organisation to query or obtain information about the Trackman's duties and responsibilities including pay and allowances.
2. In his RTI request, the applicant has neither sought any specific information with clarity nor any policy guidelines. He has raised question and sought clarifications about Trackman.
3. He is in the habit of questioning decision of the superior officers in the pretext of seeking information through multiple RTIs.
4. Information can be given as per sec 2(f), if available. Asking question and seeking clarification is not in the preview of RTI Act."
22. The Respondent while defending the above-mentioned Second Appeals submitted that factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant. The representative of the PIO repeatedly contended that the Appellant ought to have resorted to the internal grievance redressal mechanism rather than filing RTI applications.
Decision:
23. Upon perusal of the records and written submissions filed by the Respondent, the Commission observes that in all the above-captioned matters, the PIO has furnished identical replies, merely stating that since the Appellant is a Railway employee, he should resort to internal grievance redressal mechanisms and that seeking such information amounts to misuse of the RTI Act. The PIO has relied upon a previous decision of the Commission in Dr. K.C. Vijaykumaran Nair vs. Department of Posts to justify denial of information.
24. However, the Commission notes that the CPIO has not examined the individual queries on merits in any of the cases. No effort has been made to determine:
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/123746 Page 10 of 13CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124415 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124895 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/125680 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126589 o Whether the queries fall within the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act;
o Whether the information sought is available on record; o Whether any exemption under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act is attracted.
25. A blanket rejection on the ground that the Appellant is an employee of the organization and should approach internal mechanisms is not sustainable in law. The RTI Act does not bar an employee from seeking information from his own Public Authority. If an RTI application is filed, the same must be dealt with strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
26. The Commission further observes that merely terming the queries as "clarifications" without analyzing each point individually does not meet the statutory obligation cast upon the CPIO under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
27. It is well settled that:
a. If information is available on record, it must be provided. b. If a query seeks interpretation/opinion not available on record, the PIO must clearly state that no such information is available on record.
c. If any part attracts exemption, specific reasons citing relevant provisions must be given.
28. In the present cases, none of the RTI applications have been examined point-wise, nor has any speaking reasoning been recorded while denying information.
29. In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission holds that the replies furnished by the PIO in all the above matters are non-speaking, mechanical and not in consonance with the spirit and provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/123746 Page 11 of 13CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124415 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124895 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/125680 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126589
30. Accordingly, the Commission directs the PIO to re-examine each of the RTI applications separately and independently and provide point-wise reply strictly in accordance with Section 2(f) and Section 7(1) of the RTI Act and furnish copies of relevant rules, circulars, office orders or documents, if available on record. In case any information is not available, clearly state that the same is not available on record.
31. The revised reply shall be furnished to the Appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
32. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
33. The Commission cautions the PIO to avoid issuing stereotyped or identical replies in future without examining the merits of each case. Denial of information must be reasoned and in conformity with the statutory framework of the RTI Act.
The above-mentioned Second Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011-26107040 Date CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/123746 Page 12 of 13 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124415 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124895 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/125680 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126589 Copy To:
The First Appellate Authority, CENTRAL RAILWAY, O/o the Divisional Railway Manager (Admin.), Mumbai CSMT - 400 001 Balu Tukaram Joshi CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/123746 Page 13 of 13 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124415 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/124895 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/125680 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126589 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)