Compensation - CIC withdrew its earlier order of awarding compensation to the appellant holding that the information sought by the appellant has been provided; any further applications on this subject by the appellant have to be closed at the level of PIO
The appellant is present along with Mr. Raj Kumar. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. M.K.Sharma, Mr. Ankit Gupta and Mr. R.K.Verma, DTC, GNCTD, Delhi.
2. The Commission vide its order dated 652014, had directed the Public Authority to pay a token compensation of Rs.5,000/to the appellant for the loss suffered by him because of nonsupply of information by the Public Authority, who could not trace the file.
3. During the hearing today, the respondent authority submitted that the information was supplied to the appellant, after tracing the missing file. Hence they appealed to review the order of awarding token compensation of Rs.5,000/- against them. Since the information sought was given to the appellant and the file was traced, the matter of awarding compensation to the appellant does not arise. They have also shown to the Commission, the original paper in which the appellant opted out of the pension. This was the paper which was claimed to have been missing earlier and based on this, the entire information litigation was continuing for the last several years from the days of the former Information Commissioner, Shri A.N.Tiwari. The appellant has filed multiple applications and a lot of valuable time of the Commission and the Public Authority was spent on these RTI applications. The appellant had opted out of pension on 111.1993 and now insisting on pension. The respondent authority has tried their best to trace the file of the original documents. The Commission had ordered compensation earlier as the original document, wherein the appellant opted out of pension, was not shown to the Commission. All the relevant copies of the papers were furnished to the appellant, but still he is not satisfied. He claims that it is not the original and something else is also there. The Commission observes that all possible information and documents were given to him and the appellant was not entitled to pension, based on the documents which bear his signatures. There was no loss suffered by him, because the entire information was furnished. Hence the Commission withdraws its earlier order of awarding compensation to the appellant and holds that the respondent authority have furnished all the information sought by the appellant. No paper or file is pending with them to be given to the appellant. Hence they need not pay any compensation to the appellant.
4. The Commission also intends to put an end to this longdrawn information litigation, with the issue of this order. Any further applications on this subject by the appellant have to be closed then and there itself, at the level of PIO, giving reference to this order, so that the multiplicity of litigation on this subject is not encouraged. The matter is closed.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: Mr.Satdev Sharma v. DTC, Delhi in File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/001250SA