##PAGE1##

के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग

Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:330), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka

नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067

File No: CIC/SORLY/A/2024/128389

M. Rajendran .….अपीलकता(cid:330)/Appellant

VERSUS

बनाम

C.P.I.O,

Southern Railway

O/o the Principal Chief Security Commissioner,

Railway Protection Force,

Moore Market Complex,

Chennai - 600 003 ….(cid:366)ितवादी/Respondent

Date of Hearing : 22-04-2026

Date of Decision : 22-04-2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 28-03-2024

CPIO replied on : 10-04-2024

First appeal filed on : 14-05-2024

First Appellate Authority’s order : 27-05-2024

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28-08-2024

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28-03-2024 seeking the

following information:

“Brief: Based on the CPGRAMS, grievance status for registration number

DOPPW/P/2023/0010814 and reply of Sr.DSC/RPF/MAS on 30.09.2023

and Appeal number MORLY/C/A/23/0005649 and reply of ADRM/MAS on

01.11.2023 on wrong pay fixation causing omission of advance two

increments. The following information is required for future reference and

further proceedings.

CIC/SORLY/A/2024/128389 Page 1 of 5

1 / 6

Particulars of information required :

[1] kindly furnish photo copies of Service Record of Sri. T.K. Manoharan,

Retd SIPF/NHC/HQRS from page 01 to end page

[2] kindly furnish photo copies of Service Record of Sri. S. Krishnan, Retd

ASIPF/SIB/HQRS from page 01 to end page.

[3] Kindly furnish copies of superannuation settlement working sheets of

Sri. T. K. Manoharan, Retd. SIPF/NHC/HQRS

(4) Kindly furnish copies of superannuation settlement working sheets of

Sri. S. Krishnan, Retd. ASIPF/SIB/HQRS.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10-04-2024 stating as

under:

“1,2,3 & 4: Disclosure of this information has no relation to public activity

or interest, may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual

hence denied as per Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005.”

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14-05-2024. The F.A.A vide order

dated 27-05-2024 stating as under:

“Your RTI appeal dated 14.05.2024 against disposal of

APIO/Security

letter No.X/G 50/rti/20/2024 dated 10.04.2024 has been examined duly

calling the relevant file. I gone through the records. Your request for,

copies of service record of Sri T. K. Manoharan, Retd. SIPF/NHC/Hqrs and

Sri S. Krishnan, Retd. SIPF/SIB/hqrs and copies of superannuation

settlement working of Sri T.K. Manoharan, Retd. SIPF/NHC/Hqrs and Sri S.

Krishnan, Retd. SIPF/SIB/hqrs, cannot be provided as the same comes

within the ambit of Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act.

Hence, I find that APIO Security had given appropriate reply to your RTI

request and the same does not require my intervention, which is similar to

the disposal of second appeal of Sri Nashib Singh before CIC in reference

No.CIC/SORLY/A/2023/615649 dated 28.02.2024.

This disposes your present appeal.”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission

with the instant Second Appeal.

CIC/SORLY/A/2024/128389 Page 2 of 5

2 / 6

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through Video-Conference along with his authorized

representative.

Respondent: Shri A. Ibrahim Sheriff, DIG-cum-CSC present through Video-

Conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing

the same in CIC on 28.08.2024 is not available on record. Respondent

confirms non-service.

6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.

7. Authorized representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated

the contents of the RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that

information sought was wrongly denied to the Appellant. He relied upon

a decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 23695 of 2022

titled as A S Mallikarjunaswamy Vs. A S Mallikarjunaswamy & Ors. dated

22.08.2023 in support of his arguments. AR of the Appellant stated that

simila