Information relating to fixation & revision of pension and reimbursement of medical bills of the appellant was sought - the revision of pension done was not communicated to the Appellant - CIC: a compensation of Rs.15,000/ granted u/s 19(8)(b)
Heard on 26.8.14. Appellant was present along with Shri Arun Rastogi. Respondent is represented by Dr.R.Kaushik and Shri R.S.Aggarwal
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dt.24.6.13 with the PIO, Delhi Technological University seeking information relating to fixation and revision of his pension and reimbursement of medical bills. The PIO replied on 2.8.13 enclosing the information furnished by Shri R.S.Aggarwal, S.O (Estt.) vide his note dt.29.7.13 and information furnished by Shri Y. Srinivasa Rao, Sr. Asst. Registrar (F&A) vide his note dt.17.7.13. Not satisfied with the reply, the Appellant filed an appeal dt.9.8.13 with the Appellate Authority. On not receiving any reply, the Appellant filed a second appeal dt.3.10.13 before CIC.
3. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that the case of the Appellant was referred to PAOX on 7.10.13 and submitted that no response has been received from PAOX. The Appellant refuted by stating that his case has never been referred to PAOX. When further queried, the Respondent submitted that Appellant’s pension has been revised on 11.9.13. The Appellant submitted that no information was received by him till date nor he is getting any increase in pension. When the Commission asked the Respondent to show whether any communication has been sent to the Appellant informing him about revision in pension, the Respondent was unable to give any answer. It was the submission of the Respondent that as the pension revised is less than what the Appellant is now getting no change was required. The Respondent assured the Commission that he will look into the matter and inform the Appellant within one month.
4. The main issue is the non-communication of the revision of pension done on 11.9.13 to the Appellant. This was neither communicated to the Appellant in response to his representation nor in response to his first appeal. Therefore, the undersigned, with the powers vested under section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act directs the Public Authority to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the Appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order.
5. The Commission recommends the Public Authority to examine the case afresh as the Commission apprehends that something might have been gone wrong in revising the pension.
6. The Commission ordered accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: R.K.Rstogi v. Delhi Technological University in Case No.CIC/DS/A/2013/002177SA