MANOJ KUMAR RASTOGI Vs. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE files contain five appeals and four complaints in respect of the RTI applications mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs, filed by the Appellant/Complainant. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he has approached the CIC in second appeals/complaints in all the nine cases.

(2.) WITH regard to the RTI application dated 3.10.2012 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000551), the Appellant submitted that inspection of the relevant records was not allowed. The Respondents stated that point -wise reply was given to the above mentioned RTI application. Having perused the records and the reply of the CPIO, intervention by the Commission is not considered necessary in this case.

(3.) REGARDING the RTI application dated 2.8.2012 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000553), the Appellant stated that he sought information regarding an increment due to him and the calculations provided by the CPIO in his reply dated 27.8.2012 were not correct. The CPIO stated that when he sent his reply dated 27.8.2012, the public authority had some doubts regarding admissibility of the increment to the Appellant. However, subsequently his dues, including the one time increment mentioned above, were paid to him on 26.5.2014. In view of the above clarification given by the CPIO, no further action is considered necessary on this RTI application.