CIC: The Appeal is liable to be abated as the Appellant has passed away and there is no question of any benefit accruing to Appellant’s wife - Appellant’s son concurred & stated that he has filed a fresh RTI Application in his name on the same subject
The Appellant sought to know the name of officer of Chief Engineer Bareilly Zone Office who is custodian of his Last Pay Certificate and copy of LPC issued; name of the PIO with address to whom RTI application is transferred and the name of the appellate authority.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Prabhat Kumar Saxena, S/o the deceased Appellant.
Respondent: Lt Col P.S. Negi, Sr. Adm. Officer & CPIO, Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly Cantt. present through VC.
CPIO submitted that appropriate reply was provided to the late Appellant on 21.02.2017. CPIO further brought the attention of the bench to an earlier order of Commission passed in the year 2013 wherein a set of Appeals of the same Appellant against their office were dismissed on the ground that he has pursued the grievance that his pension has not been correctly fixed through multiple RTI Applications and First Appeal.
Upon an inquiry from the Commission that whether son of the Appellant is representing his mother as he has written to the registry attached with this bench purportedly as spouse of the Appellant, he clarified that his mother predeceased his father i.e the Appellant in the year 2001 and argued that he has also mentioned in his correspondences that he is also the nominee of the Appellant.
Commission remarked at this point that the Appeal is then liable to be abated as the Appellant has passed away and there is no question of any benefit accruing from this case to Appellant’s wife as well. Commission based on the written representations received prior to the hearing presumed that it is the wife of the Appellant who will be party to the proceedings of this case.
Appellant concurred and stated that he has as such filed a fresh RTI Application in his name on the same subject and will pursue the matter with the Commission in future.
In view of the hearing proceedings, the instant Appeals stands abated.
Divya Prakash Sinha
Citation: V K Saxena v. Bareilly Cantt in File No.: CIC/IARMY/A/2017/151319/SD, Date of Decision: 02/08/2018