Panmati Gulab Bharti vs CPIO, Office of the RLC (Central) Nagpur

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 10015

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Ashutosh Chaturvedi, Information Commissioner
Panmati Gulab Bharti – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Office of the RLC (Central) Nagpur – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/RLCNP/A/2025/644527

Important Points

Redressal of a grievance does not exempt a CPIO from the statutory obligation to provide a formal, point-wise reply to an RTI application in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005.

Subject

Administrative Law - Right to Information

Act Referred

RTI Act 2005: S.6(1), S.10
Payment of Gratuity Act 1972: S.7(3A)

Headnote

(A) Right to Information - CPIO's failure to respond - Non-furnishing of reply by the CPIO and absence of First Appellate Authority's order on record necessitates a direction to the CPIO to provide a point-wise response regardless of whether the underlying grievance has been redressed. (Para 8, 9)

(B) Procedural Compliance - Submission of records - Respondents are under a strict obligation to place all relevant documents, including the CPIO's reply and FAA's order, on record prior to hearings to enable the Commission to examine the legality of the response. (Para 10)

Issues: Whether the CPIO is required to provide a formal RTI response if the grievance sought in the application has already been redressed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Prashant Keshavaa

Table of Content
1. filing of rti application regarding gratuity delay and subsequent failure of cpio to respond. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. respondent's contention that the underlying financial grievance was redressed via bank credit. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. requirement of formal point-wise reply despite grievance redressal. (Para 8 , 9)
4. obligatory submission of records and disposal of appeal. (Para 10 , 11)

Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:

RTI application filed on	03/07/2025
CPIO replied on	Not on Record
First appeal filed on	04/08/2025
FAA’s order dated	Not on Record
Second Appeal dated	23/09/2025

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03/07/2025 before the CPIO, Office of the RLC (Central), Nagpur seeking the following information:

“ I, the undersigned, seek the following information under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005 regarding the prolonged delay in disbursement of gratuity payment for my late husband Shri Gulab Shobhan, ex-employee of Bhandewada UG Mine, Ghonsa Sub Area, WCL, District Yavatmal:

1. What is the current status of Refund Bill No ALCH-48(35)/2024-PGA dated 24-01-2025 submitted for the payment of 2000000 rupees towards gratuity?

2. Has the amount been approved and disbursed by the Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Labour Commissioner, New Delhi? If yes, provide the date and mode of disbursement.

3. If the amount has not been disbursed, what are the specific reasons for the delay despite submission of complete documents?

4. Provide the names, designations, and contact details of the officers responsible for processing and approving the gratuity payment.

5. As per Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, the employer is liable to pay interest if gratuity is not paid within 30 days. Kindly inform:

a. Who is responsible for paying interest in this case?

b. What is the interest amount due as of today?

c. When will the interest be disbursed?

6. Has any departmental action been initiated against responsible officers for the delay? If not, why? The delay in gratuity disbursement has caused severe financial and emotional stress to the legal heir. I request that strict action be taken against the officials responsible for violating the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.”

2. The CPIO has not furnished any reply to the appellant as per record.

3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant filed the First Appeal with the first Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority order is not on record.

4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed the Instant Second Appeal on 23/09/2025.

5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent

Respondent: Mr. Prashant Keshavaa, Regional Labour Comissioner /CPIO participated in the hearing on VC

6. The Appellant has not availed the opportunity to participate in the hearing despite due notice of hearing

7. The Respondent submits that while the applicant initially addressed the RTI application to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandrapur, and the First Appeal to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur noting that the competent First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 is the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), the grievance regarding the gratuity amount payable to the applicant has already been fully redressed, with the due amount having been credited directly to the applicant's bank account through PFMS vide Transaction No. 002307140348 dated 27/09/2025.

DECISION

8. The Commission has carefully considered the submissions made by the respondent and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the respondent has submitted that the grievance raised by the appellant has since been addressed. However, the Commission notes that neither the CPIO’s reply nor the order of the First Appellate Authority pertaining to the present RTI application has been placed on record before the Commission. In the absence of these records, the Commission is unab