Libertatem Magazine

Chief Information Commission Dismisses Appellant’s Application Seeking Redressal for Grievances Faced by Him

Contents of this Page


The Appellant filed an RTI Application on 7th January 2019 seeking information from North Eastern Railway. In the application, the Appellant sought a copy of the offer letter, the marks obtained in the exam and seeking redressal for the post of track maintainer allotted to him.  The CPIO responded to the RTI Application of the Appellant on 13th February 2019 with a letter that had a point-wise response to the information sought by the Appellant.

The Appellant wasn’t satisfied with the response made by the CPIO. So, he filed for a First Appeal on 8th February 2019 but there was no record of adjudication by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the Appellate filed for a Second Appeal on 28th April 2019 under Section 19 of the RTI Act on grounds of unsatisfactory response by the CPIO.

Arguments Advanced

The Appellant stated that the CPIO had failed to provide a proper response. The Respondent stated that they had provided the Appellant with a copy of the offer letter and the result of the exam. The Appellant stated that he did not get a copy of the offer letter. The Appellant further stated that the result he got didn’t provide his marks.

The Respondent stated that they gave the Appellant the post of track maintainer in Group D. The Respondent further added that all candidates that had scored less than 50% got a grade pay of 1800. The Appellant had scored less than 50% because of which he was given grade pay of 1800 under the post of track maintainer. 

The Appellant respondent by stating that he should at least know the marks scored by him. The Appellant further added that as per the guidelines of 28th February 2017, there are clear instructions that the dependents mustn’t be given the cleaning or track man’s post.

The Respondent responded by stating that the guidelines stated by the Appellant keep on changing. The Respondent further added that the guidelines of 25th October 2017 had also been sent to the Appellant. The Commission then asked if the Appellant had in fact received a copy of these guidelines. The Appellant then replied that he had indeed received these guidelines.

Court Observations

The Commission observed the guidelines of 25th October 2017. The Commission also noticed that the Appellant’s RTI application refers to getting his grievances redressed which does not come under the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission refers to the Supreme Court Case Union of India v. Namit Sharma 2012 in which the Court stated that the Right to Information Act only ensures whether an individual must get access to information that is in the possession of a public authority.

Court’s Decision

Since the Right to Information Act doesn’t allow the Appellant to get his grievances addressed, he must approach some other forum for the same. Hence the Tribunal had disposed of this appeal. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author