Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Decision No. CIC/AD/C/2013/000288/VS/07250 and Appeal No. CIC/AD/C/2013/000288/VS. Case: L.V. Nimje Vs Central Public Information Officer. Central Information Commission

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberDecision No. CIC/AD/C/2013/000288/VS/07250 and Appeal No. CIC/AD/C/2013/000288/VS
JudgesVijai Sharma, Information Commission
IssueRight to Information Act
Judgement DateJune 30, 2014
CourtCentral Information Commission

Decision:

Vijai Sharma, Information Commission

RTI Application:

1. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.11.2012 seeking information about service matters. The CPIO responded on 11.12.2012. Not satisfied with the reply, the appellant filed a second appeal with the Commission.

Hearing:

2. The appellant and respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.

3. The appellant referred to his RTI application and reiterated the various points made in his RTI application. The appellant stated that he had received a response from the CPIO, vide letter dated 11.12.2012, but certain important points have not been addressed. The appellant stated that the points on which he wants the information/documents are point No. 1 a), 1 c), 2 b), & 4 of his RTI application.

4. During the hearing the appellant stated that in respect of point 1 a) & 2 b) he wants copy of rules and in point 1 c) he needed a copy of pay fixation. The appellant stated that on point 4 of his RTI application he wanted a copy of the priority list of inter railway mutual transfer of Loco Pilots in Nagpur Division till date. The appellant stated that by way of general comment that he had asked for information in respect of colleagues who were senior to him and junior to him. The appellant stated that he had asked information about these 2 colleagues so that it was clear as to the reason why he has been placed in the seniority list between these 2 colleagues.

5. During the hearing the respondent on point No. 1 a) stated that some employees have got increment in terms of Estt. Rule No. 48/2012, this rule is...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT