Many Indian citizens have served the nation diligently, often facing difficult choices during times of national unrest or industrial action. When a government employee or their family believes a rightful reward or recognition for their loyalty and service has been unfairly denied, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, offers a powerful avenue to seek clarity and accountability. This case highlights how an RTI applicant sought to uncover the basis of a reward given to his late father for not participating in a significant railway strike, and what the Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled when the information was no longer available. Understanding this case can empower you to seek similar information if you believe you or your family has been unjustly treated regarding service-related benefits or recognition.
Background: What Information Was Sought
The RTI application was filed with the East Central Railway Divisional, seeking specific details about a reward system. The applicant wanted to know the criteria and basis for classifying the “arduousness of duties” as mentioned in a Directorate of Operations (D.O.) letter from the Railway Board. More importantly, the applicant sought a list of all staff members who were rewarded with employment for their wards in the railways, along with their working areas and designations. This information was sought in the context of his late father, a former railway employee who had not participated in the 1974 railway strike, and who the applicant believed was entitled to a reward that was allegedly denied.
How the Public Authority Responded
Initially, the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the East Central Railway Divisional directed the applicant to send the Indian Postal Order (IPO) in favour of FA & CAO, E.C. Railway, to be payable at the post office within the said division. The applicant complied with this instruction and sent the revised IPO as per the PIO’s directions. However, the core issue of information availability would soon become the central point of contention.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant clarified his grievance. He stated that he was seeking information about a reward that, in his opinion, had been denied to his late father. His father, he claimed, had not participated in the significant railway employees’ strike of 1974. The respondent, representing the railway authorities, explained that the appellant’s late father had indeed been an employee of the Railways and had not participated in the 1974 strike. According to the available service records, the father had opted for an “advance increment” out of four possible options, and this increment was provided to him as a reward. The appellant, however, insisted that his late father had, while alive, filed an RTI application seeking a copy of the letter in which he had indicated his option, contending that no such option had ever been submitted . The respondent expressed an inability to provide any concrete proof that the appellant’s late father had indeed opted for the advance increment. They explained that the matter was over 38 years old, and the records from that period were likely destroyed due to the passage of time. All that remained was the service record indicating that the father had been granted an advance increment as a reward for his non-participation in the 1974 strike. The respondent also confirmed that a copy of this service record had already been provided to the appellant’s father in response to his earlier RTI application. Despite this, the appellant remained firm in his assertion that his father had not submitted any option and demanded a copy of it.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission, after hearing both sides, delivered its verdict. The Commission held that the specific information being sought appellant – a copy of the option submitted late father – was not available with the public authority. Since the information did not exist in their records, the CIC concluded that it was not possible for them to direct its disclosure. This ruling underscores a fundamental principle of the RTI Act: the Act mandates disclosure of information that exists and is held authorities, not the creation of new records or the retrieval of information that has been lost or destroyed due to the passage of time or administrative reasons. While the appellant’s grievance was understandable, the CIC’s hands were tied non-availability of the requested document.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Information must exist: The RTI Act requires public authorities to provide information that they hold or control. If the information has been destroyed, lost, or never existed, the authority cannot be compelled to disclose it. The CIC’s decision here clearly illustrates this limitation.
- Lesson 2: Age of records matters: For very old matters, especially those preceding widespread digitization, it is crucial to understand that records may no longer be available. While authorities should maintain records as per the Public Records Act, 1993, and departmental rules, the reality is that very old documents can be lost.
- Lesson 3: Focus on available evidence: If the specific document you seek is unavailable, try to ascertain what other related information might exist. In this case, the service record indicating the advance increment was available and had been provided. While not the exact proof the appellant wanted, it was the available evidence of the reward.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or office holds the information you need. In this case, it was the East Central Railway Divisional.
- Draft your RTI application clearly: State precisely what information you are seeking. Be specific about dates, names (if relevant and permissible), and the nature of the information.
- Pay the requisite fee: Submit the application with the prescribed fee, usually an IPO or court fee stamp, as per the rules of the specific state or central government department.
- Follow up and escalate if necessary: If you do not receive a response within 30 days or if the response is unsatisfactory, you can file a First Appeal and subsequently a Second Appeal to the CIC.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide details of any emoluments, increments, or benefits awarded to employees for not participating in the railway strike of 1974, including the criteria for such awards and a list of beneficiaries if such records are available.
Conclusion
This case serves as a practical illustration of the boundaries of the RTI Act. While the Act is a powerful tool for transparency and accountability, it cannot conjure information that no longer exists. For citizens seeking information about past service records, rewards, or benefits, it is essential to approach the process with realistic expectations regarding the availability of historical data. Nevertheless, the RTI Act remains an invaluable instrument for seeking justice and clarity from government bodies, empowering citizens to ask questions and demand answers when they believe their rights or entitlements have been overlooked.
