A gunman was removed from services in 1999 and died later in 2009 - His son filed an application and sought the daily progress report with regards to it using RTI - CIC directed to provide the information on receipt of valid succession certificate and NOC

O R D E R

Information sought:

The appellant filed an RTI application on 16.05.2018, seeking information on five points regarding his application dated 13.11.2017, including, inter-alia;

1. Provide daily action or daily progress report with regards to the above noted application. Provide details regarding the names of the officers to whom my application was marked, the no. of days when the application was pending with each officer and the action taken by each officer.

2. As per the rules of the department, what is the maximum time limit to dispose of the appellant’s application? Has the said time limit been followed in the case of appellant.

3. Please provide the names and designations of the officers who were required to take action on the above noted application but failed to do so. And other related information.

The CPIO, vide reply dated 28.06.2018, provided requisite information to the appellant as sought and received from the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Mahoba vide letter dated 26.06.2018. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Mahoba provided information against point nos. 1 and 5. With regards to point nos. 2 to 4, he stated that the said information does not pertain to his branch. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a first appeal dated 23.07.2018. FAA, vide order dated 07.08.2018, referring a letter dated 03.08.2018 of SDM, Jhansi Division, disposed of his first appeal. In the letter dated 03.08.2018, SDM, Jhansi Division had informed that the partial information had been furnished to the appellant through letter P/ESP-11/Misc./RTI dated 22.06.2018 of Personnel Branch.

Ground for the second appeal:

The appellant filed second appeal u/s. 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground of unsatisfactory reply received from CPIO and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

Hearing on 30.04.2020:

The Appellant, Shri Satya Narayan Sonkar, and the Respondent, Shri Shailender Srivastava, Assistant Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Jhansi, UP attended the hearing through audio conferencing. The written submission were taken on record. The appellant submitted that he was hospitalized owing to his ill health was not in a condition to represent his case. The Commission considered the request and health issues of the appellant and adjourned the matter.

Submissions made by the parties during hearing on 21.07.2020:

The appellant submitted that no information to his RTI application had been received by him till date. Respondent submitted that appellant’s father was working on the post of gunman since 1989. He was removed from his services in the year 1999 and died in the year 2009. The appellant vide his representation dated 13.11.2017 sought information on the last pay drawn in his late father’s account. Respondent submitted that the information was sought by the appellant through RTI application with respect to the action taken on his representation dated 13.11.2017. The respondent apprised that the sought information cannot be provided for two reasons. One, the record being 19-20 years old which made it difficult to trace. Second, the last pay drawn could be supplied only on submission of valid/legal succession certificate and NOC of other legal representatives of late Shri Kanhaiya (F/o Appellant). On query to the respondent as to whether the respondent will provide the requisitioned information on receipt of succession certificate from the respondent, the respondent agreed to provide requisite information to the appellant on receipt of succession certification and NOC of all legal representatives of Late Shri Kanahaiya (F/o appellant).

Decision:

The Commission after hearing submissions of both the parties and perusal of record observes that the issue raised by the appellant in his representation dated 13.11.2017 is a subject matter of grievance which is beyond the ambit of RTI Act, 2005. However, the Commission considering the statement made by the respondent, directs the respondent to provide the requisitioned information to the appellant on receipt of legal/valid succession certificate from the appellant alongwith NOC of all legal representatives of appellant’s late father. The aforesaid direction be complied within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

With the aforesaid observation appeal stands disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Amita Pandove

Information Commissioner

Citation: Satya Narayan Sonkar v. North Central Railway in Second Appeal No. CIC/NCRAL/A/2018/152536, Date- 21.07.2020