RAJNARAYAN BHAGWATI PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three Original Applications are being disposed of by this common order since a common issue is involved in them and the three applicants are similarly situated. Applicants are stated to be working now as Junior Engineer -Grade II at Matunga Workshop under the Central Railway in the scale of pay of Rs. 5000 -8000. They were promoted to the above grade with effect from February 27, 2012. However, they contend that they ought to have been promoted to the above grade with effect from November 1, 2003. They pray for an appropriate direction to prepone their promotions accordingly. The other prayer is to issue a declaration that the Cadre Strength of Mistry/Junior Engineer at Matunga Workshop as on October 30, 2003 was 129 and not 116.

(2.) BUT curiously the first and primary prayer in these Original Applications is to quash and set aside Annexure A.1 to A. 3 communications issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). While Annexure A.1 and A.3 are issued by the Deputy Chief Workshop Manager in his capacity as Public Information Officer and in response to the request made under the Act, Annexure A.2 is an order passed by the Additional General Manager/First Appellate Authority under the said Act.

(3.) WE will deal with the question whether this Tribunal can entertain such a challenge against orders passed by the authorities under the Right to Information Act, particularly on the face of Section 23 thereof, a little later. In our view a brief reference to certain basic and essential facts is necessary to understand the crucial aspects of the pivotal issue involved in these cases.