Information relating to the competent authority for permitting change from combative force to non-combative artisan staff in RPSF was sought - Respondent: the appellant is not in the combatised formation - CIC: Provide the information

O R D E R

Facts:

1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 21-11-2012 seeking information on 36 counts relating to the competent authority for permitting change from combative force to noncombative artisan staff, etc. The CPIO responded on 7-1-2013. The appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 30-1-2013. The FAA responded on 19-3-2013. The appellant filed a second appeal with the Commission on 17-6-2013.

Hearing:

2. Both parties were personally present in the hearing.

3. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 21-11-2012 and reiterated the various points made in the RTI application. The appellant said that he has mentioned 36 points in his RTI application but his main thrust is that he has not been given his dues, facilities, rank and work for which he was eligible. The appellant said that he had been appointed in 1989 in the RPSF and that his first posting was in Dayabasti.

4. The appellant mentioned that in 1996 taking into account that he possessed a license for heavy duty vehicle, he was made Head Constable Driver and was also given the stripes due to him as a Head Constable. The appellant said that suddenly in the year 2001, the rank and facilities which he enjoyed was taken back and that he was given work and position which was equivalent to that of an artisan. The appellant said that he himself is confused as to where he stands today, i.e., whether he is in the artisan group or somewhere else. The appellant said that if he was in the artisan group then with three upgradations he should be getting a certain grade pay. But neither he is getting facilities and emoluments that are due to him nor is he doing work which he should have been doing after so many years in service which he joined in 1989.

5. It is in this background that the appellant stated that he wants to know the following:

(a) what was the process undertaken, and by which authority was he downgraded in rank and work which is equivalent to that of artisan group; and

(b) why is he not being given the overtime, night allowance and other facilities which he should have been getting taking into account his standing in the service.

6. The appellant further stated that because he has filed an RTI application, he has been posted far away in the West Bengal as a punishment posting.

7. The respondent stated that whatever information the appellant is asking for are all available in the website of the railways.

8. The respondent stated that the appellant was initially appointed as a Constable in the RPSF. The system of appointment as Driver Grade I in RPSF is through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination by inviting applications from eligible candidates and the selection is done as per the rules. The applicants are considered from those applications who have put forward their candidatures of their own volition and screening is done of the eligible candidates to ensure that the best are selected from the pool.

9. The respondent stated that there are certain norms which are contained in the relevant notifications which govern the selection process related to Driver GradeI, Driver GradeII and Grade III, which respectively are also referred to as Sergeant Driver, Head Driver and Naik Driver.

10. The respondent stated that whatever questions have been raised by the appellant about his service matters and service conditions, the information in respect of those has been provided from time to time by the respondent to the appellant.

11. The respondent stated that the appellant was informed on 31-12-2012. The respondent explained that of the questions which have been raised some of them are general in nature and some of them are specific in nature and some of the points which the appellant is presently raising in the hearing have not been raised in the RTI application.

12. The respondent elaborated that it is important to understand the system in the RPSF where there are combatised formations and noncombatised formation. The respondent stated that the combatised formation followed certain parameters, for example, under a head constable there are a certain number of constables and there is a system of working which could be distinguished from the noncombatised. The respondent said that the appellant is not in the combatised formation. Instead, he is a noncombatised personnel.

Decision:

13. The respondent is directed to provide information to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, as is sought in para 5 above in context of the RTI application. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Vijai Sharma)

Information Commissioner

Citation:  Shri Omkar Gupta v. Ministry of Railways Railway Board in Decision No.CIC/BS/A/2013/001605/VS/08978 Appeal No.CIC/BS/A/2013/001605/VS