Compliance with RTI response timelines is essential for transparency; delays are regrettable but can be justified.

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 30.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) There are 86 branch post offices under Gautam Buddha Nagar Division. There are 24 vacant posts of BPM(Branch Postmaster) in branch post offices under Gautam Buddha Nagar Division.

S.No. Division Name SO Name BO Name Post Name 1. Gautam Buddha Jahangirpur Bhaipur BO GDS BPM Nagar SO

2) When will these 24 vacant posts be filled? 3. For how long is the post of BPM vacant in these 24 branch post offices?

3) There is already a BPM in Chholas BO under Shiv Nadar University SO. Still, the post of BPM has been created there. The name of Chholas's BPM is Jai Kaushik and his employee ID is 50531005. Please explain the reason.

4) There are 4 posts vacant in ASP Noida / Noida Central Sub Division and 20 posts are vacant in Greater Noida Sub Division. The Inspector of Posts of Greater Noida Sub Division has no interest in providing financial services in branch post offices. Please explain the reason.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 02.09.2024.

3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

Point 1: The information sought in this Para does not come under Sec-2(f) of RTI Act 2005. Therefore, this information cannot be supplied.

Point 2: This is under process.

Point 3: This information is not available in material form.

Point 3: The information sought in this Para does not come under Sec-2(f) of RTI Act 2005. Therefore, this information cannot be supplied.

Point 4: The information sought in this Para does not come under Sec-2(f) of RTI Act 2005. Therefore, this information cannot be supplied.

The FAA vide order dated 03.10.2024 stated that:

After going through the relevant documents and reply of CPIO/ SSPOs GB Nagar, Noida Division, it is concluded that the information provided by the CPIO vide letter No- RTI/1/2024-25 dated 25.09.2024 seems adequate. But it is also found that that reply was given on 25.09.2024, so there was delay as per the provisions of RTI Act 2005, In light of above, CPIO/SSPOS GB Nagar is hereby directed not to delay the reply against RTI queries in future. Accordingly, as per deliberation above and keeping the provisions of RTI Act 2005.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 24.11.2024.

5. The Complainant appeared through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Kanwar Pal, ASP (HQ) Noida attended the hearing in person.

5. The Complainant inter alia submitted that the posts of BPM are not filled and hence he filed the instant RTI application seeking information on when the said posts will be filled, reasons for not filling the posts etc. The complainant further submitted that the respondent has not provided the sought information and claimed Section 2(f) of RTI Act. 6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the complainant sought queries/reasons for not filling up the posts in contention and hence was denied U/s 2(f) of RTI Act. Written submission dated 26.08.2025 filed by the respondent is taken on record and relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:

“The required information has been provided to RTI applicant video this office le