CPIO to give affidavit about the members who are availing medical and LTC facilities instead of allowing the applicant to see the files

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.


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.


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.

Decision No CIC/AD/A//09/00157 dated 25.3.2009

Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/000157 dated 1.2.2010

Penalty proceedings against the CPIO, Dept. of Posts, Faizabad dropped by the Commission on hearing the explanation

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.


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 1.2.2010

Post Master has to explain for not forwarding the RTI request to the CPIO

The 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.


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.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/C/2009/000899 dated 1.2.2010