CPIO's point-wise RTI replies upheld as compliant with RTI Act provisions; no further intervention warranted.

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 27.09.2023 seeking the following information:

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.11.2023 stating as under:

“Please find enclosed reply of the Nodal officer pertaining to personnel Department, Jaipur Division to the information sought vide your letter under reference No. 1.

Encl. is as under:

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 26.12.2023 held as under:

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

5. A written submission dated 18.08.2025 filed by the Appellant is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:

information provided in the RTI and appeal, stating that in compliance with the CIC's order dated 30/01/2023, "Office Order dated 10/02/2023 informed that the requested information could be collected on 13/02/2023," is entirely misleading. In reality, this letter was sent by Speed Post (No. ER241536638IN) on 15/02/2023 and received by me on 16/02/2023, making it impossible for me to appear in the Policy Section, Personnel Department, on 13/02/2023. Even after receiving the letter, despite appearing personally several times before the Sr. DPO, the file inspection as per the CIC's order was not allowed. The information provided on 06/03/2023 also failed to comply with the CIC/NWRLY/A/2022/634617-UM order, and the CIC'S directions were disregarded. All these facts were reported by me in a written complaint to the CIC on 27/03/2023 (copy enclosed).

2. A written submission dated 22.08.2025 filed by Ms. Sunita Chaudhary, Sr. DPO/PIO is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:

 Assistant Personnel Officer North Western Railway-Jaipur” Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Represented by her husband, Shri Anand Jangir present through video conference.

Respondent: Shri Manish Dave, APO/APIO present through video conference.

3. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on the respondent while filing the same in CIC on 09.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.

4. On being queried by the Commission, the Appellant’s representative affirmed that opportunity of inspection of relevant records has been afforded by the Respondent which was duly availed. However, they are not satisfied with the reply given by the Respondent against points No. 2, 3 and 4 of RTI application.

5. The Respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of their written submission stated that point-wise reply along with relevant information as is available on record has already been provided to the Appellant earlier vide letters dated 07.11.2023, 26.12.2023 and now through written submission dated 22.08.2025.

Decision:

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records observes that as far as RTI application is concerned appropriate reply has been furnished by the Respondents vide letter dated 07.11.2023, 26.12.2023 and now through written submission dated 22.08.2025 which are as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the same are upheld.

7. Intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.