Disseminating important decisions published in the RTI portal by CIC in respect of Department of Posts and other news relating to RTI
Thanks for visiting this blog. As CIC Decisions in respect of Department of Posts are less in number,(I think all requests for information are acepted by CPIOs and no chance of appeal) CIC decisions will not be published here with comments. Viewers are requested to visit Postal Staff Corner.
Thank you once again.
Mr.Babu Lal the Applicant filed an RTI application dt.16.6.08 with the CPIO, DoP, Kanpur. He requested for inspection of LTC and Medical files of one Mr. Ram Kishan Kori. The CPIO replied on 11.7.08 stating that Mr. Ram Kishan Kori has denied in writing disclosure of information about himself to the Applicant. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant file his first appeal on 30.7.08 stating that he has requested for the inspection since it was related to a corruption case. The Appellate Authority replied on 18.11.08 stating that Mr. Kori has clearly given in writing, as per Section 11(1) of the RTI Act that information about him should not be given to the Applicant. The AA upheld the decision of the CPIO. Aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed his second appeal dt.27.1.09 before the CIC. In his second appeal, he stated that Mr. Ram Kishan Kori’s wife is late Mrs. Phoolmati. However, Mr. Ram Kishan Kori has shown Ms. Rajeshwari Devi as the family pensioner after the death of his wife and that Ms. Rajeshwari Devi happens to be his (the Appellant’s) wife. He stated that the son Mr. Arun Kumar is also an illegal member. His contention is that Mr. Ram Kishan Kori has been availing of LTC and medical facilities in the name of Ms. Rajeshwari Devi and Mr. Arun Kumar, showing Ms. Rajeshwari Devi as his wife when the truth is that Ms. Rajeswari Devi is still married to him(the Applicant). According to him Mr. Kori is planning to avail family pension and other benefits with the help of the family pensioner Ms. Rajeshwari Devi and therefore has included her name and that of Mr. Arun Kumar in his family pension papers. For these reasons he has requested for inspection of the LTC and medical files.
?The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for March 25, 2009. Mr. Rameshwar Bajpai, ASPos (HQ) andMr. S.P. Pathak, SS(LC) represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
The Respondents submitted that Mr. Kori has denied disclosure of information about himself and about Mrs. Rajeshwari Devi to the Appellant. The Appellant submitted that he and Mrs. Rajeshswari Devi are not yet divorced and he is paying for the monthly maintenance of Mrs. Rajeshwari Devi, as per court’s order, although she has been living away from him , with Mr. Kori for many years. His contention was that while taking the maintenance amount for herself, she is also trying to avail pension benefits , LTC and medical benefits as Mr. Kori’s wife and by having her name included in the pension papers of Mr. Kori . The Respondents stated that the name of Mrs. Rajeshwari Devi is not mentioned in the pension papers submitted by Mr.Kori and that they are not sure that whether she is availing LTC and medical facilities as wife of Mrs. Kori.
After hearing the arguments put forth by both parties, and keeping in view Mr. Kori’s submission that information about him should not be disclosed to the Applicant, the Commission directs the CPIO to ascertain whether Mrs. Rajeshwari Devi is availing medical and LTC facilities or not as a result of living with Mr. Kori and to provide an affidavit to the Appellant signed by the Appellate Authority stating the exact position. The affidavit should also include information with regard to inclusion of Ms. Rajeshwari’s name in the pension particulars and pension payment order of Mr. Kori. All information to be provided by 15th April, 2009.
The above case was again heared on 1.2.2010
The Appellant was present during the hearing. Mr. P.K. Tripathi, Director, Postal Services, Kanpur cum Appellate Authority and Dr. Arun Yadav, ASP (East) represented the Public Authority.
Decision
The Appellant submitted that he has not received the affidavit from the Public Authority as directed by the Commission in order dated 25.03.09. The
Respondent, however, submitted that he did not furnish the affidavit as ordered by the Commission since he thought that that there is no need to provide the same as he had already furnished the information vide his reply on receipt of copy of the second appeal. The Commission while noting that the decision of the Commission has not been complied with, directs the Respondent to provide the Affidavit to the Appellant by end February, 2010 as directed in the order dated 25.03.09 and also to show cause why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day should not be imposed on him for not complying with the Commission’s decision dated 25.03.09 and to appear with an explanation before the Commission on 22nd March, 2010 at 10.30 a.m.
The Commission gave the CPIO, Department of Posts, O/o Sr.Supdt. of Post Offices, Faizabad Division, Faizabad one more chance to appear for a hearing before the Commission along with his explanation to the show cause notice on 1.2.2010 at 11.45 am.
The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for February 1, 2010. Shri Dharmender Kumar Khatri, SDI(S) Akb, represented the Public Authority.
Decision
Vide his rejoinder dt.29.1.10, the CPIO submitted that the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application dated 15.1.09 was provided on 17.2.09 point wise. He further added that in response to the Appellant’s second appeal dt.26.2.09, further point wise information was provided on 17.3.09 and another appeal dt.28.4.09 was also responded to on 10.6.09
The Commission on review of the explanation provided holds that information has been provided on time and drops the penalty proceedings against the PIO.
CIC Decision No http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AD-01022010-02.pdf dated 1.2.2010The Commission gave one more chance to the CPIO, Dept. of Posts, Bijnour to appear for a hearing before the Commission along with his explanation to the show cause notice on 1.2.2010 at 12.00 noon.
The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for February 1, 2010. Shri Rameshwar Dayal, PIO represented the Public Authority.
Decision
Shri Rameshwar Dayal, PIO submitted that he came to know about the RTI application dated 3.7.09 only on receipt of the hearing notice from CIC in its order dated 11.12.09 and that immediately after receiving the notice, information was provided to the Appellant. He added that he had sought an explanation vide letter dt.27.1.10 from the concerned Post Master to whom the RTI application was addressed, who vide his letter dt.29.1.10 admitted that the RTI application was received on 4.7.09 but due to his preoccupation with other work, he could not take action on it. Mr. Dayal further added that he had directed the Post Master to appear for the hearing at the Commission but the Post Master has stayed away with the excuse that he is unwell.
It was noted by the Commission that Mr. Dayal was not responsible for the delay in furnishing information and hence the penalty proceedings against him are dropped. However the Commission would like to convey its displeasure at the flippant manner in which Mr.Jayaram Singh, the Post Master, Bijnour has dealt with the RTI application
as the deemed PIO, by just putting it aside until the PIO asked for it on receipt of the order from the Commission and hence directs him to show cause as to why the RTI application was not transferred to the PIO within 5 days of its receipt, as stipulated in the RTI Act. He is directed to submit his written response so as to reach the Commission by 28.2.2010.
Shri Devendra Prasad Singh filed an RTI application dt.12.1.09 with the PIO, DoP, Balia. He requested for proof of delivery of his speed post article sent on 12.11.08. The PIO replied on 3.2.09 requesting the Applicant to intimate the speed post No. to be able to track the article. The Applicant filed a complaint dt.7.5.09 before CIC reiterating his request for the information. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 25, 2009.
Shri Rajeshwar Yadav, IPO representing CPIO represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
Shri Rajeshwar Yadav . CPIO cum Respondent submitted that the Appellant had requested vide RTI application dt.12.1.09 for proof of delivery of speed post article sent by him from Balia Post Office to Lucknow on 12.11.08. The CPIO replied on 3.2.09 requesting him to intimate the speed post No. to track the letter. The CPIO, meanwhile transferred the RTI application to the complaint section of the Post Office. On receipt of the speed post No from the Appellant on 11.2.09 , the CPIO wrote to Lucknow GPO on 12.2.09 requesting the CPIO Lucknow to inform the date of delivery. The Appellant on 7.5.09 once again reminded the CPIO who in turn on 23.6.09 reminded the CPIO Lucknow GPO to inform the date of delivery. The CPIO Lucknow GPO on 11.7.09 wrote back to Balia Post office to intimate to him the mode of dispatch i.e the bag in which it was sent. After this communication there was no response from the Appellant. The Respondent added that on receipt of CIC notice to appear for a hearing on 4.11.09, the Respondent contacted the Sr.Post Master, Balia HPO once again about the dispatch details and once again there was no response from him. The Respondent, Shri Yadav further stated that he personally looked into the matter and came to know from the tracking system that the speedpost article was sent from Balia SPC to Mhow RMS on 12.11.08 and from there it was dispatched to Lucknow GPO via Benaras. He was able to track the article till it reached Lucknow SPC. After that, it seems that the article was lost. He added that the Manager, SPC, Lucknow vide his letter dt.11.11.09 had informed him that no information can be provided since the records have been weeded out.
The Commission after hearing the submission of the Respondent directs the CPIO, GPO, DoP, Lucknow to provide the information about the delivery of the article to the Appellant in the event the records have not been weeded out. On the other hand, if the records has been weeded out, a copy of the rule regarding preservation of records along with proof of weeding out the same to be provided to the Appellant. The Commission holds the CPIO, Lucknow GPO as the deemed PIO u/s 5(5) and directs him to show cause why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day should not be levied on him for not responding to the RTI application even though he was informed on 12.2.09 itself to provide the information. The response to reach the Commission by 25.12.09.
CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000823 dated 25.11.2009Dr.O.P.Duggal filed an RTI application dt.2.7.09 with the PIO, DoP, Dehradun. He requested for following information in respect of P&T Holiday Home situated at Library (Gandhi Chowk) in the city of Mussoorie:
i) Is the Postal Department owner/tenant of the building.
ii) If owner from whom purchased when and at what price with photocopy of sale deed.
iii) If tenant, who is the owner, taken at what rent and from which date with photocopy of agreement deed with the owner.
The PIO replied on 4.8.09 stating that the Postal Department is the owner of the Holiday Home Campus Mussoorie and that it was transferred from the name of Mrs.M. Fuster to the President of India on 23/26 June 1960. He stated that Photocopy of the sale deed is not available at present. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.10.8.09 with the State Information Commission, Dehradun stating that the PIO had not mentioned when the saledeed would be made available. The SIC, Dehradun in turn transferred the case to CIC on 26.8.09.
The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for December 2, 2009. Shri S.K.Kandwal, ASP (Bdg) cum APIO represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was represented by Dr.Jyoti Marwah during the hearing.
Decision
Dr.Jyoti submitted that her father is the owner of the land on which the Postal Holiday Home stands. The Respondent, however, refuted this statement by stating that the Postal Department is the owner of the building and that it was purchased in 1960 from Mrs.Fuster. He, however, was unable to produce the sale deed as sought by the Appellant since according to him the same has been lost. He also stated that the CPIO had informed him in July that efforts are being made to get a duplicate sale deed. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides directs the CPIO to lodge an FIR with the police about the lost Sale Deed and to share a copy of the FIR with the Appellant and with the Commission and also to obtain the duplicate sale deed and provide a certified copy of the same to the Appellant before end January, 2010. The Appellant is directed to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 7.2.10.
Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta filed an RTI application dt.7.10.08 with the CPIO/Dy. Divisional Manager(PLI), O/o CPMG, Lucknow requesting for information against 17 points with regard to KVPs and NSCs. Shri R.S.Pal, A.D.P.S.(Legal Cell), O/o CPMG, Lucknow transferred the RTI application to Supdt. of Post Offices, Fatehpur Division on 14.10.08 requesting him to provide the information directly to the Applicant. On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.10.12.08 with the UP Information Commission who transferred the case to CIC vide letter dt.23.5.09 . The complaint was registered at the Commission on 13.6.09. The Commission vide its order dt.30.9.09 directed the CPIO to provide the information to the Applicant by 30.10.09 and also to respond to the showcause notice issued to him by the Commission for the delay in supply of information, by 5.11.09.
The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 19, 2009. The Respondents were not present during the hearing. The Applicant was present during the hearing.
Decision
The Complainant submitted that he received the information vide letter dt.5.11.09 which, however was not correct. He added that his original KVPs were stolen from his house and that he had lodged an FIR with the police in this connection. He complained that his maturity amount of Rs.30,000/- was denied to him by the officials of the Postal Department. The Commission after hearing the submission of the Appellant directs the CPIO to appear in person along with all necessary files/documents/records/registers at the Commission on 17.12.2009 at 10.30 am. The Complainant also to be present for inspection of files in the presence of a senior official of the Commission.
The Commission directs the Public Authority to provide Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for the expenses incurred by the Complainant in traveling to the Commission twice for the hearing and for the harassment he has been subjected to while running from pillar to post for the information . The amount to be paid by 15th of December.
The Commission also gives one more opportunity to the CPIO to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him for the delay in furnishing information and for providing the wrong information to the Complainant, seemingly with malafide intentions. The CPIO to submit his explanation in person at the time of the hearing on 17.12.09. A copy of his explanation also to be given to the Complainant. The complaint is disposed off with above directions.
Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000547 dated 11.11.2009Shri Sujit Kumar filed an RTI application dt.24.10.08 with the CPIO, DoP, Motibihari. He wanted to know reasons for the delay in delivery of a letter sent by ordinary post from Bombay which was stamped on 13.9.08, and stamped at Motibihari on 19.9.08 and stamped at Sirsa Colony on 1.10.08 and was delivered by the Post Man on 3.10.08. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.16.12.08 with the Appellate Authority. On still not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.13.2.09 with Bihar Information Commission who transferred the case to CIC, which was registered at CIC on 18.6.09. The Commission vide its order . dt.30.9.09 directed the n CPIO to provide the information to the Applicant by 30.10.09 and also to send a response to the showcause notice issued to the PIO by the Commission for the delay in supply of information , by 5.11.09.
The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 19, 2009. Shri Satya Narayan Prasad, Asst. Supdt. of Posts and Shri Pawan Kumar, Inspector Posts represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was present during the hearing
Decision
The Complainant wanted to know why the letter which he sent by ordinary post has taken 12 days to reach from Mumbai to Sirsa Colony in Motihari in Bihar. The Respondent submitted that the delay in delivery of letter sent by ordinary post was because the pincode provided by the sender was not correct and therefore the article reached another post office and had to be redirected to the correct post office. The Commission while accepting the explanation for the delay in delivery of the letter, noted that no explanation to the showcause notice has been furnished; however condones the delay in furnishing information with a strict warning to the PIO not to deal with RTI applications with a frivolous attitude and condones the delay in providing information to the RTI application within the stipulated period and drops the penalty proceedings against the PIO.. Since the information sought relates to a grievance matter, the Complainant is advised to approach a suitable forum for redressal of his grievance. The complaint is disposed off with the above directions
Shri Brijesh Kumar Shukla filed an RTI application dt.29.8.08 with the CPIO, DoP, Sasaram. He wanted to know what is meant by preliminary inquiry and the disciplinary inquiry. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.20.2.09 with the Appellate Authority. Still not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.14.5..09 before CIC. The Commission vide its order of even No. dt.30.9.09 directed the respondents to provide the information to the applicant by 30.10.09 and also to send explanation in writing to the Commission for the delay in supply of information by 5.11.09.
The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing on November 20, 2009. Shri Jitendra Singh, CPIO represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
After hearing the Respondent , the Commission holds that while information sought is not available in records with the Public Authority, the definitions are available in the CCS(CCA) rules which are available on the website. The Respondent may provide a photocopy of the relevant pages of the rules to the Complainant by 25 December, 2009.
Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000599 dated 19.11.2009Shri Jyotinder Patel filed an RTI application dt.15.6.09 with the CPIO, DoP, Mumbai City West Division. He sought following information relating to GPO Vs Shobha Alimchandani.
i) To provide the names and designations of the officials who were involved in the above case causing deficiency of service.
ii) Total No. of hearings till the final order.
iii) Total remuneration to the defense advocate. Whether paid per appearance or consolidated.
iv) Was the award compensation paid to the complainant individually (what was individual amount paid by each person involved) or was it paid from a common pool.
Shri R.P.Vishwakarma, CPIO replied on 14.7.09 stating that information sought cannot be disclosed as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the information is personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship with any public activity and also it is not in a larger public interest. He further added that there is no case with his division like GPO Vs. Shobha Alimchandani.
Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.29.7.09 with the Appellate Authority (Copy not in file). Ms.Abha Singh, Appellate Authority replied on 27.8.09 directing the CPIO to supply the designation of the official at fault, causing deficiency in service, as sought against point 1 and to provide available information against points 2 to 4 . In compliance with the order, the CPIO furnished point wise information to the Applicant on 7.9.09. Not satisfied with the information, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.12.9.09 before CIC stating that CPIO has not provided the information against point 4, about whether compensation was paid from the pocket of the individual or by the Public Authority. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 24, 2009. Shri Sanjay Deoram Kharat, SDI(I) representing CPIO & Appellate Authority represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
The Respondent submitted that there was a CDRF Case No.205/2006 Shobha Rajan Alimchandani V/s. The Postmaster in Charge, Tardeo Post Office & the CPMG, GPO, Mumbai. Hence the reply given by the CPIO that there is no case with his division like GPO Vs. Shobha Alimchandani is absolutely correct. He added that as per Court judgment dt.29.4.09 wherein it was ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.8000/- jointly to the Appellant within 4 weeks, the compensation was paid to Smt. Shobha Alimchandani by the Department immediately to ensure that the Court orders are complied with. After payment of compensation, the Department had fixed the responsibility on the official at fault who failed to deliver the letter & disciplinary action has been initiated to recover the loss sustained by the Department. He added that it was the postman who was found to be at fault and since he could not pay Rs.8000/- the Department had paid the amount with the understanding that it would be recovered from the postman in monthly installments. The Commission after hearing the submission of the Respondent directs the CPIO to provide the detailed information against point 4 to the RTI application to the Appellant by 24.12.09. The Appellant is directed to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 31.12.09.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Shri Satyendra Singh the Applicant filed an RTI application dt.15.4.09 with the PIO, DoP, Sitamarhi. He stated that he was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 27.3.08 and had been ‘enlarged’ on bail by the High Court, Patna on 1.5.08 and that he is continuing under deemed suspension. He added that Shri Satya Narayan Mahto, Accountant surrendered in the CBI Court, Patna and was also placed under deemed suspension. He was also ‘enlarged’ on bail but is continuing as such. He further stated that the rate of subsistence allowance is fixed reckoning the pay stage of pre-revised scale. In this context, he requested for information against 5 points with regard to the rate of subsistence allowance paid to Shri Satya Narayan Mahto after implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.18.5.09 with the Appellate Authority. In his appeal he stated that he has not received recommendation of the review committee for extension of suspension for next 180 days after expiry of initial 90 days. He further added that the subsistence allowance initially sanctioned is subjected to a compulsory review after 90 days. Prolonged suspension has no reason directly attributable to him and that there appears to be no reason to deny benefit of enhancement of subsistence allowance to him from its due date. The Applicant averred that the first review is compulsory and that the second review either suo moto or on his request, is permissible. But on all these issues the SPOs has been non responsive. Being aggrieved at not receiving any information even from the First Appellate Authority, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.30.6.09 before CIC reiterating his request for the information. The CIC, vide its order dt.25.9.09 directed the PIO to provide information to the Complainant by 30.10.09 and to respond to the showcause notice issued by the Commission for the delay in furnishing information, by 5.11.09.
The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 13, 2009. Respondents were not present during the hearing. Efforts were made several times to contact the Complainant over his phone but the lines remained busy.
Decision
The Respondent in his explanation to the showcase notice, dt.3.11.09 stated that the Complainant vide his RTI application dt.15.4.09 had sought information against five points. As the matter was related to payment of subsistence allowance and quantum thereof, the matter was referred to Post Master, Sitamarhi vide letter dt.1.5.09. The Complainant then filed an appeal on 18.5.09. Keeping in view the urgency, the response to the appeal was furnished directly to the Post Master General (NR), Muzaffarpur vide letter dt.10.6.09 and the same compliance was also furnished to the Complainant by the Regional Office, Muzaffarpur on 10.7.09. The Commission, while taking note of the fact that the information has been provided, however, directs the Post Master, Sitamarhi, under Section 5(5) of the RTI act to showcause as to why information was not provided to the Complainant within the stipulated period as given in the RTI Act. The response to reach the Commission by 24 December, 2009
CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000652 dated 13.11.2009
