Central Information Commission
Mr.Naresh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 19 February, 2013
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/002500
Heard through Video conference.
Date of Hearing : February 19, 2013.
Date of Decision : February 19, 2013.
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Naresh Bhai Dave
Street No. 4,
Momai Nagar
Gandhi Nagar, Jamnagar
Gujarat - 361 002.
Applicant was not present.
Respondent(s)
Western Railway
Divisional Railway Manager's Office
Rajkot Division
Rajkot.
Representative : Shri Ravi Ranjan, PIO(Finance)
Shri U V Patel, PIO (Personnel)
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/002500
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated 20.11.11 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, DRM Office, Western Railway, Rajkot Division seeking information in respect of allowances to LDCEs that are permissible. The PIO replied on 15.2.12 providing point wise information. He informed the Applicant very clearly that no instruction has been issued by Personnel branch about taking independent duty from traffic apprentice during practical training. The PIO also enclosed a copy of abstract of IREM Vol. II Chapter XIX para 1905 as sought by the Applicant. The Applicant thereafter filed his first appeal on 15.3.12. The Appellant wanted to know whether there is provision for taking independent duty from the Traffic apprentice during practical training. He also sought further clarification in respect of point 3 and the rule by which deduction of Rs 3738 per month has been made from his salary. The Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal on 9.4.12 enclosing the reply obtained from Sr.DPO. He also advised the Appellant to contact the Sr.DPO to inspect the records, if he so desired. The Appellant thereafter filed his second appeal before the Commission on 12.6.12 stating that he had performed independent duty as per training scheduled in TFC Apprentice (LDCE) training and that the recovery of Rs 37782/ made from his salary is not justified and therefore be directed to be returned to him. Decision
2. During the hearing the Respondent submitted that as per rules the Applicant is not entitled to any Overtime and Night duty while he is a training apprentice and that inadvertently the claims submitted by the Applicant were cleared by the office for overtime and NDA and paid to him. However when this mistake came into light, this amount was recovered from the Appellant's salary. The Respondent also pointed out that amount of Rs 37,782/ mentioned by the Applicant is incorrect and that the amount recovered was actually Rs 18,687/.
3. Be that as it may, the relief sought by the Appellant from the Commission in terms of directing the Public Authority to return the amount recovered from his salary, cannot be granted to him by the Commission since the same falls outside the ambit of the RTI Act. As far as information is concerned it is held that the PIO has given an adequate response to the Appellant pointwise.
4. The appeal is rejected and case closed.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Naresh Bhai Dave Street No. 4, Momai Nagar Gandhi Nagar, Jamnagar Gujarat - 361 002.
2. The Public Information Officer Western Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Rajkot Division Rajkot.
3. The Appellate Authority Western Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Rajkot Division Rajkot.
4. Officer in charge, NIC.