welcome to Timely Response | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
16	CIC/POSTS/A/2016/311158 (55.66 KB)	25 Jul, 2017	Bala Vs. PIO, Department of Posts The appellant sought information regarding the number of employees in MTS from scheduled caste; name of the employees from scheduled caste along with their contact details and work allocation, details of any inquiry constituted against them under rule 14, rule 15 or rule 16; name of employees whose salary has been blocked; name of female employees against whom inquiry has been constituted by Shri P.K Singh. CPIO replied 25.07.2016 furnishing point wise information. FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision and stated that information provided is sufficient. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide the complete information sought about the punishment imposed on officials.
17	CIC/RK/A/2016/001124-AB (104.89 KB)	25 Jul, 2017	Saurabh Kumar Dixit Vs DPG & CPIO, Railway Board, New Delhi The appellant has sought information regarding measurement of land belonging to railways on both sides of the track from Bareilly railway station to Roza Railway Station, numbers of reserved and unreserved tickets issued at the railway station at Shahajapur, reason for closing of services of train nos. 54251, 54252 & 54356, renewal of M.S.T facility etc. The CPIO provided reply & enclosures on point nos. 3 & 4 only. Being aggrieved with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant filed first appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that information had been provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 02.11.2016. Being aggrieved with the FAA’s Order, the appellant filed Second Appeal on 15.02.2016 before this Commission. CIC issued warning to the CPIO for the inordinate delay in providing information to the appellant.
18	CIC/RK/A/2016/001021-AB (238.77 KB)	24 Jul, 2017	Dolamani Namdeo Vs. CPIO, Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur, Jharkhand – 833102 The appellant has sought information regarding his old selection grade Rs 530-630/- wef. 12.08.1982 as the selection grade post was vacant due to promotion of one Shri J.Sethi, TGT (O/M)/MMS/JSG. The appellant sought Xerox copy of note sheet & other related documents and reason for the delayed action on the letter submitted on July 2014 by the appellant etc. The CPIO provided some information. Being aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed First appeal. The First appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO. CIC noticed that the replies of both the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) were deficient in nature. Since no final reply was provided to the appellant the present respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects, to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail etc free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
19	CIC/RK/A/2016/000975-AB (228.97 KB)	20 Jul, 2017	Hemant Gaur Vs. CPIO, Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer, 2010 Since the requisite information was not provided to the appellant, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in regard to the number of MST passes issued from 01.08.2011 to 31.10.2011 and 01.09.2012 to 30.11.2012 and such other details, free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order. In regard to the delay in providing the final reply on 13.07.2017 i.e. after a period of 2 years of the receipt of the said RTI application, the PIO is issued warning conveying displeasure of the Commission.
20	CIC/RK/A/2016/000862-AB (100.96 KB)	19 Jul, 2017	Charan Dass Vs CPIO, Northern Railway, RPF, Ambala Cantt. & CPIO Northern Railway, DRM’s Office, Unnamed Road The appellant vide his RTI application dated 02.07.2015 sought information on 3 points; competency of Sr DSC/UMB RPF to handle the case and sending it to DRM/UMB for disciplinary action against the applicant vide letter no-14B/SIB/UMB/2013 dated 15.07.2013, duty list of RPF in such cases, divisional inspector’s report as mentioned by Sr DSC/UMB in letter no-14B/SIB/UMB/2013 dated 15.07.2013. CIC directed CPIO to provide revised point wise reply (subject to invoking of section 8 of the RTI Act) complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record including certified true copies of the documents e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence e-mail etc free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
21	CIC/SA/A/2015/002146/MP (20.17 KB)	30 Mar, 2017	Shri Naveen Kumar Yadav, Bhiwani Vs. National Council of Teachers Education, New Delhi Shri Naveen Kumar Yadav, the appellant, sought clarification whether the candidate having History in B.Ed could teach Social Studies with a copy of the relevant rules along with the rules regarding the subjects required to have been studied in B.Ed for becoming a teacher of Social Studies. CIC held that, CPIO had not complied with the order of the FAA and had not supplied the information within the stipulated period of seven days, therefore, directs the CPIO to (i) send a reply to the appellant with a copy to the Commission, (ii) submit his explanation for not responding to the RTI application and not complying with the order of the FAA, within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission.
22	CIC/BS/C/2014/000302 (46.43 KB)	28 Mar, 2017	Surender Kumar Singh vs Central Public Information Officer Astt. Dir.I, Deptt. of Posts, O/o Postmaster General , Northern Area, Muzaffarpur Bihar The complainant filed RTI application seeking information regarding reasons for not giving him MACP benefits etc. The respondent stated that the complainant had been given interim reply vide letter dated 03.07.2014 and final reply was given on 16.07.2014. The CIC upheld the decision of the CPIO.
23	CIC/BS/C/2014/000320 (56.67 KB)	28 Mar, 2017	Mr. Naveen Kumar Srivastav, Patna, Bihar Vs. Central Public Information Officer CGM, BSNL, Patna The complainant filed RTI application on 30.07.2014. The respondent on 06.09.2014, informed the complainant that he has not deposited requisite fees along with his RTI application. The Commission is of the view that there is a delay in asking the requisite fees from the complainant. The respondent is directed to furnish reply/information to the complainant on his RTI application dated 30.07.2014, free of cost.
24	CIC/BS/C/2015/900215 (49.34 KB)	27 Mar, 2017	Sushila Devi Vs. Central Public Information Officer Chief Accounts Officer (CFA), BSNL, Jaipur CIC , on perusal of the reply given by the respondent, found that the reply is not adequate. CIC held that, the respondent shall inform the complainant (i) Ground of refusal of the information (ii) name and address of the first appellate authority (iii) name and designation (CPIO) etc. The respondent is directed to give revised reply to the complainant.
25	CIC/CC/A/2015/002352-AB (463.70 KB)	22 Nov, 2016	Waheed Shareef vs Central Public information Officer EME Records & CPIO-MCEME The CPIO has directed to provide the information free of cost.
26	CIC/VS/A/2015/002051+2052+2053-AB (348.30 KB)	19 Oct, 2016	Sh. Vishesh Abrol vs Central Public information Officer M/o Railways Office of the Controller of Stores, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai The CPIO has directed to provide the information free of cost.
27	CIC/SM/A/2012/000028, 000868 & 001523 (212.83 KB)	05 Oct, 2012	Dr. Prashan Ramesh Chakkarwar, Shri Ajit Kumar & Shri Ashish Gupta vs CPIO, Union Public Service Commission Retention period of Records – UPSC - the CIC observed that the public authority must follow a uniform policy in regard to both the retention and disclosure of records.
28	CIC/SG/A/2012/000667/18564 (58.51 KB)	24 Apr, 2012	Mr. Harish Kumar vs Mr. Dilip Ramnani PIO & SE-I Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Mr. V. K. Bhatia PIO & SE-II Municipal Corporation of Delhi Information to be supplied free of cost if not provided within stipulated period. Imposed penalty.
29	CIC/SM/C/2011/901255 (207.26 KB)	11 Apr, 2012	Shri Vilakshan Singh vs CPIO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi The Complainant had requested for the certified copy of the judgement passed in a particular case and had enclosed Rs.50/- through banker’s cheque by way of application fee. CIC held that, the rules framed by the DOPT, clearly prescribes the banker’s cheque as a valid mode of payment of application fee and directed the CPIO eitherto send the information or a reasoned order if she does not want to disclose the information for any other reason.
30	CIC/SG/A/2012/000555/18267 (57.36 KB)	04 Apr, 2012	Ms. Sushila vs Public Information Officer Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. & PIO & Chief Administrative Officer Atomic Energy Education Society Information to be supplied free of cost as it was not provided within stipulated period.

16

CIC/POSTS/A/2016/311158
(55.66 KB) pdf icon

25 Jul, 2017

Bala Vs. PIO, Department of Posts

The appellant sought information regarding the number of employees in MTS from scheduled caste; name of the employees from scheduled caste along with their contact details and work allocation, details of any inquiry constituted against them under rule 14, rule 15 or rule 16; name of employees whose salary has been blocked; name of female employees against whom inquiry has been constituted by Shri P.K Singh. CPIO replied 25.07.2016 furnishing point wise information. FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision and stated that information provided is sufficient. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide the complete information sought about the punishment imposed on officials.

17

CIC/RK/A/2016/001124-AB
(104.89 KB) pdf icon

25 Jul, 2017

Saurabh Kumar Dixit Vs DPG & CPIO, Railway Board, New Delhi

The appellant has sought information regarding measurement of land belonging to railways on both sides of the track from Bareilly railway station to Roza Railway Station, numbers of reserved and unreserved tickets issued at the railway station at Shahajapur, reason for closing of services of train nos. 54251, 54252 & 54356, renewal of M.S.T facility etc. The CPIO provided reply & enclosures on point nos. 3 & 4 only. Being aggrieved with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant filed first appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that information had been provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 02.11.2016. Being aggrieved with the FAA’s Order, the appellant filed Second Appeal on 15.02.2016 before this Commission.

CIC issued warning to the CPIO for the inordinate delay in providing information to the appellant.

18

CIC/RK/A/2016/001021-AB
(238.77 KB) pdf icon

24 Jul, 2017

Dolamani Namdeo Vs. CPIO, Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur, Jharkhand – 833102

The appellant has sought information regarding his old selection grade Rs 530-630/- wef. 12.08.1982 as the selection grade post was vacant due to promotion of one Shri J.Sethi, TGT (O/M)/MMS/JSG. The appellant sought Xerox copy of note sheet & other related documents and reason for the delayed action on the letter submitted on July 2014 by the appellant etc. The CPIO provided some information. Being aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed First appeal. The First appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO. CIC noticed that the replies of both the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) were deficient in nature. Since no final reply was provided to the appellant the present respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects, to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail etc free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.

19

CIC/RK/A/2016/000975-AB
(228.97 KB) pdf icon

20 Jul, 2017

Hemant Gaur Vs. CPIO, Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer, 2010

Since the requisite information was not provided to the appellant, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in regard to the number of MST passes issued from 01.08.2011 to 31.10.2011 and 01.09.2012 to 30.11.2012 and such other details, free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.

In regard to the delay in providing the final reply on 13.07.2017 i.e. after a period of 2 years of the receipt of the said RTI application, the PIO is issued warning conveying displeasure of the Commission.

20

CIC/RK/A/2016/000862-AB
(100.96 KB) pdf icon

19 Jul, 2017

Charan Dass Vs CPIO, Northern Railway, RPF, Ambala Cantt. & CPIO Northern Railway, DRM’s Office, Unnamed Road

The appellant vide his RTI application dated 02.07.2015 sought information on 3 points; competency of Sr DSC/UMB RPF to handle the case and sending it to DRM/UMB for disciplinary action against the applicant vide letter no-14B/SIB/UMB/2013 dated 15.07.2013, duty list of RPF in such cases, divisional inspector’s report as mentioned by Sr DSC/UMB in letter no-14B/SIB/UMB/2013 dated 15.07.2013. CIC directed CPIO to provide revised point wise reply (subject to invoking of section 8 of the RTI Act) complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record including certified true copies of the documents e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence e-mail etc free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.

21

CIC/SA/A/2015/002146/MP
(20.17 KB) pdf icon

30 Mar, 2017

Shri Naveen Kumar Yadav, Bhiwani Vs. National Council of Teachers Education, New Delhi

Shri Naveen Kumar Yadav, the appellant, sought clarification whether the candidate having History in B.Ed could teach Social Studies with a copy of the relevant rules along with the rules regarding the subjects required to have been studied in B.Ed for becoming a teacher of Social Studies. CIC held that, CPIO had not complied with the order of the FAA and had not supplied the information within the stipulated period of seven days, therefore, directs the CPIO to (i) send a reply to the appellant with a copy to the Commission, (ii) submit his explanation for not responding to the RTI application and not complying with the order of the FAA, within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission.

22

CIC/BS/C/2014/000302
(46.43 KB) pdf icon

28 Mar, 2017

Surender Kumar Singh vs Central Public Information Officer Astt. Dir.I, Deptt. of Posts, O/o Postmaster General , Northern Area, Muzaffarpur Bihar

The complainant filed RTI application seeking information regarding reasons for not giving him MACP benefits etc. The respondent stated that the complainant had been given interim reply vide letter dated 03.07.2014 and final reply was given on 16.07.2014. The CIC upheld the decision of the CPIO.

23

CIC/BS/C/2014/000320
(56.67 KB) pdf icon

28 Mar, 2017

Mr. Naveen Kumar Srivastav, Patna, Bihar Vs. Central Public Information Officer CGM, BSNL, Patna

The complainant filed RTI application on 30.07.2014. The respondent on 06.09.2014, informed the complainant that he has not deposited requisite fees along with his RTI application. The Commission is of the view that there is a delay in asking the requisite fees from the complainant. The respondent is directed to furnish reply/information to the complainant on his RTI application dated 30.07.2014, free of cost.

24

CIC/BS/C/2015/900215
(49.34 KB) pdf icon

27 Mar, 2017

Sushila Devi Vs. Central Public Information Officer Chief Accounts Officer (CFA), BSNL, Jaipur

CIC , on perusal of the reply given by the respondent, found that the reply is not adequate. CIC held that, the respondent shall inform the complainant (i) Ground of refusal of the information (ii) name and address of the first appellate authority (iii) name and designation (CPIO) etc. The respondent is directed to give revised reply to the complainant.

25

CIC/CC/A/2015/002352-AB
(463.70 KB) pdf icon

22 Nov, 2016

Waheed Shareef vs Central Public information Officer EME Records & CPIO-MCEME

The CPIO has directed to provide the information free of cost.

26

CIC/VS/A/2015/002051+2052+2053-AB
(348.30 KB) pdf icon

19 Oct, 2016

Sh. Vishesh Abrol vs Central Public information Officer M/o Railways Office of the Controller of Stores, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai

The CPIO has directed to provide the information free of cost.

27

CIC/SM/A/2012/000028, 000868 & 001523
(212.83 KB) pdf icon

05 Oct, 2012

Dr. Prashan Ramesh Chakkarwar, Shri Ajit Kumar & Shri Ashish Gupta vs CPIO, Union Public Service Commission

Retention period of Records – UPSC - the CIC observed that the public authority must follow a uniform policy in regard to both the retention and disclosure of records.

28

CIC/SG/A/2012/000667/18564
(58.51 KB) pdf icon

24 Apr, 2012

Mr. Harish Kumar vs Mr. Dilip Ramnani PIO & SE-I Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Mr. V. K. Bhatia PIO & SE-II Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Information to be supplied free of cost if not provided within stipulated period. Imposed penalty.

29

CIC/SM/C/2011/901255
(207.26 KB) pdf icon

11 Apr, 2012

Shri Vilakshan Singh vs CPIO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

The Complainant had requested for the certified copy of the judgement passed in a particular case and had enclosed Rs.50/- through banker’s cheque by way of application fee. CIC held that, the rules framed by the DOPT, clearly prescribes the banker’s cheque as a valid mode of payment of application fee and directed the CPIO eitherto send the information or a reasoned order if she does not want to disclose the information for any other reason.

30

CIC/SG/A/2012/000555/18267
(57.36 KB) pdf icon

04 Apr, 2012

Ms. Sushila vs Public Information Officer Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. & PIO & Chief Administrative Officer Atomic Energy Education Society

Information to be supplied free of cost as it was not provided within stipulated period.