Reward for not participating in the Railway strike of 1974
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the East central Railway Divisional seeking information regarding criteria /basis of classification of arduousness of duties in light of D.O. letter of Member of the Railway Board along with list of those staff, their working area and their designation who were rewarded with employment of their wards in railways. The Public Information Officer (PIO) directed the applicant to send the IPO in favour of FA & CAO, E.C. Railway and at the post office in said division. The applicant then sent the revised IPO as per the directions of the PIO.
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant sought the reward that according to him had been denied to his father who had not participated in the Railway strike of 1974. The respondent explained that the appellant is seeking information/ reward with reference to his late father who was an employee of the Railways and had not participated in the railway employees strike in 1974. The respondent added that as per the service record of the late father that is available with them, the father had opted for advance increment out of the four options given and the same was given to him. The appellant stated that his late father had filed an RTI application, while being alive, seeking a copy of the letter in which he had indicated his option while contending that no such option had been given by the father. The respondent expressed his inability to provide any proof of the fact that the appellant’s late father had opted for advance increment since the matter is more than 38 years old and the records of that time seemed to have been destroyed. The respondent pointed out that all that they have is the service record indicating that the father had been given advance increment as a reward for not participating in the strike in 1974. The respondent also added that a copy of the service record has already been supplied to the appellant’s father in response to his RTI application. The appellant insisted that his father had not submitted any option in this regard and sought a copy of the same.
View of CIC
The Commission held that since the information being sought by the appellant (copy of option submitted by his late father) was not available, it was not possible for the CIC to authorize its disclosure.
Citation: Mr. Rajiv Kumar v. East central Railway Divisional Railway Manager’s Office in File No: CIC/AD/A/2013/000339
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1204
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission