· web viewno. 185 30/12/2010 . the additional member (staff) ministry of railways. railway...

No. 185 30/12/2010

The Additional Member (staff)Ministry of RailwaysRailway BoardNew Delhi

Sub: Information under RTI Act, 2005

Ref: Railway Board’s letter no. RTI Cell/2010/11387/CPIO-2 -Final reply dated 19.10.2010.

Dear Sir,

The information has not been given to me against para 3, wherein I had requested to provide the Junior Scale strength indicated in classified list, zone wise, unit wise and department wise.

This may please be provided

( S.K. Bansal) B-3/4, Jeevan Jyoti Apartment Near Lok Vihar, Pitampura Delhi-110 034

No. 184 30/12/2010



Ref: Railway Board’s letter no. RB/RTI Cell/2010/010011993 dated 04.11.2010.

Dear Sir,

None of the information asked for by my letter has been furnished. The queries were very specific, but the annexure enclosed therein gives no reply to any of my query.

2. Copies of notification were sought vide para 2 to 7 were requested. The same have not been given.

3. If the Railway administration is not inclined to give any information, the same may please be denied specifically, so that I may make my appeal to still higher level.

Note : In para 5 last line, the ‘produced’ word may please be read as ‘provided’.

4. It is observed, that though no reply has been given except attaching a copy of notification, but still exactly one month has been taken to give this reply. Actually received on 16.11.10, therefore it is being delayed without any reasons.

An very early reply is requested.

Yours sincerely


No. 183 30/12/2010




Dear Sir,

The information asked for by me through my application has not been given properly.

1. Vide para 2, I had requested to furnish the number of Junior Scale posts included in the cadre strength for all the departments, department wise. In reply, I have been given the total Junior Scale posts including Group ‘B’ which was not required.

Whether this proposal was cadre restructuring of Group ‘A’ only for both Group ‘A’ & Group ‘B.

I do not think in the cadre restructuring proposal for Group ‘A’, the strength of Group ‘B’ play any role.

It is requested that the Junior Scale cadre strength including leave reserve sent for cadre restructuring may kindly be furnished department wise.

2. Para 2 has not been replied at all, even the annexure enclosed as mentioned has not been annexed.

Moreover, the cadre strength department wise, grade wise, before the proposal and on acceptance was requested, which has not been given.

It is requested that the information as asked for may kindly be furnished at the earliest possible.

Yours sincerely


No. 182 30/12/2010

The Information commissionMinistry of RailwaysRailway BoardNew Delhi

Sub: Non provision of information under RTI Act, 2005 by Railway Ministry.


Dear Sir,

I am very much constrained to bring the issue of non – provision of information against my request under RTI Act, 2005. Few other aspects may also be noted in this reference.

1. That the information asked for was sent to Railway administration but was received on 05.10.2010. Though only copy of one letter is attached but still it took exactly one month to reply i.e. on 04.11.2010. This was however, despatched on 10/11/2010 only as per the Post Office stamp) and in fact received on 16.11.2010. This delay is perhaps taking place knowingly. The one month period laid down is maximum permitted, but in this case when no information has been given factually, which could have been given any time earlier.

2. As is evident from the enclosed letter of the Railway Administration, none of the queries have been replied specifically. The papers enclosed do not fulfil the reply asked for very specifically, though it is claimed that the papers enclosed are self explanatory.

3. Not a single information asked through para 1 to 7 is supplied through the papers enclosed.

4. Copies of various notifications / notings were requested, but none of these have been provided.

5. Copy of notification quashing the notification dated 18.06.06 was asked, but it has not been given.

6. The date of review of DPC of the batch 2002-03 was requested, alongwith the competent authority who did not, the enclosed papers do not clarifying the same.

7. The approval of the reviewed DPC was asked alongwith the copy of the same, it is not given.

8. Para no. 5, 6 & 7 are not replied at all.

9. This applicant has requested many times to give the reply of each para separately, but no care is taken and few papers are enclosed in reply which do not answer the specific query in order to avoid the unpleasant information asked for.

10. In view of some latest decision of your office where, what, when has not been permitted. The Railway administration has refused totally to reply most of the queries, and the reasons of arriving at a particular decision, are not furnished. If so needed, relevant papers can be made available in detail.

In view of the above, intervention of your good self’s office is requested, so that proper and exact information is furnished by the Railway administration.

Yours sincerely


No. 181 28/12/2010

The Additional Member (staff)

Ministry of Railways

Railway Board, New Delhi



Dear Sir,

I am not satisfied with the reply given to me in respect with my application dated

05.10.2010 as the enclosures given with the reply do not give reply to any of my

query .

It is not complete information. It is requested that parawise information may kindly

be given to me at the earliest. Para 5, 6, 7 & 8 are very specific queries, but none

of these has been replied. No information is given for para 3 & 4. Even para 2, is

also very specific, it can either be accepted or negated. The annexure are replying

this query of mine at all.

It is requested that instructions may kindly be given to the concerned authorities to

give me specific replies to my specific queries and that also at the earliest.

Yours sincerely,

(B B Garg )AXEN/Const.,

N.Rly., Tughlakabad, Delhi

No. 180 28/12/2010



Railway Board

New Delhi



Dear Sir,

The information has not been given to me fully, hence the same is unsatisfactory as under :

1. Though in para 334(i) it has been mentioned that the officers promoted in the earlier panel senior to officers promoted from the later panel. Despite this, the officers inducted w.e.f. 01/04/02, have been shown junior to the officers inducted w.e.f. 14.01.05 in the case of civil engineers batch.

2. I had asked very clearly, that copy/copies of the rules applied making the officers belonging to 01/04/02, could be made junior to officers inducted w.e.f. 14/01/05, may be made available. This query is very specific and may kindly be replied accordingly.

An early reply may please be given.

Yours sincerely,

( H S Sidhu )AXEN/Const.,

N.Rly., State Entry Road, New Delhi

No. 179 28/12/2010

The Chief Public Information Officer


Railway Board

New Delhi


Ref: Railway Board’s letter no. RB/RTI Cell/2010/01001994 dated 03.11.2010.Dear Sir,

In reference to the above, it is mentioned in this reply that the modification in the date of induction of a person is required to be approved by the Minister of Railways, which in fact was got done also.

It may be informed that :-

1 (a) Whether the modification in the date of induction of 5 officers attaining the date of induction from 14/1/05 to 01/04/02: in view of Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi’s judgment dated 29/01/2010 was also got approved by the Minister of Railways & Board.

1(b) If so, a copy of the noting having the approval may kindly be made available.

2 (a) It has been said that the notification was sent for publication in Gazette of India. It may however be informed that the new modification in date of induction to 01.01.84 of sh. R K Gupta, whether the DOITS of sh. R K Gupta was also modified.

2(b) If so, kindly provide the copy of the notification modifying the DOITS of Sh R K Gupta.

3 (a) Whether after fixing the new DOITS, whether his seniority of Sh. R K Gupta was modified.

3(b) if so kindly make available the copy of such notification, if any.

4 (a) Whether the modification in DOITS resulted in the change of status of sh. R K Gupta, due to which he became entitled for same promotion.

4(b) If so, kindly provide the copies of such relevant notifications, if any.

An early reply is requested.

Yours faithfully,

( Jitender Kumar )AXEN/Track Machine. , N.Rly.,

State Entry Road, New Delhi

No. 178 28/12/2010



Railway Board

New Delhi


Ref: Railway Board’s letter no. RB/RTI Cell/2010/01001996

Dear Sir,

I had sought certain informations vide my letter dated 05.10.2010. Though theletter has been replied, but none of my queries have been replied. The papers enclosed do not explain any of my queries, which are very specific. Specially, I had asked that whether a notification is required to published in the Gazette of India. And if so copy of the same was asked.

It is evident, that nothing is mentioned in the annexure enclosed therein in this respect, or even for other paras of queries.

It is requested that instructions may kindly be given to me specific information against each para separately.


Yours faithfully,

( Jitender Kumar )AXEN/Track Machine. , N.Rly.,

State Entry Road, New Delhi

No. 177 28/12/2010



Railway Board

New Delhi


Ref: Railway Board’s letter no. RB/RTI Cell/2010/010011989 Dated 04.11.2010.

Dear Sir,

I am not satisfied with the information given to me in the above mentioned letter as under :

Para No.1

The information has been totally denied to me while mentioning the cases of High Court the operative paras of the judgment should have been extracted which

may kindly be given now.

Para No.2

No information has given to me in this respect. The copies of rules of the

Railways referred in the decision may kindly be given to me.

An early response is requested.

Yours sincerely,

( H S Sidhu )AXEN/Const.,

N.Rly., State Entry Road, New Delhi

Dated : 29/11/2010

Additional Member (Staff)Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,New Delhi

Sub: Information sought under RTI Act, 2005.

Ref: RTI Cell/2010/01009711 dated 02.07.2010

Dear Sir,

Kindly refer to your above mentioned letter I was given only interim reply. The final reply is still awaited. But though more than 5 months have passed since I asked the information, I am still waiting for the final information.

Please provide me the required information at the earliest possible. Also the responsibility for the avoidable delay may please be fixed.


Dated : 29/11/2010Additional Member (Staff)Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,New Delhi

Sub: Information sought under RTI Act, 2005. Ref: Railway Board’s letter No. RB/RTI Cell/2010/010011992 dated 15.11.2010

Dear Sir,

I wish to bring to your notice that I am not satisfied with the information furnished to me vide Railway Board’s letter under reference above.

In fact not a single quarry of mine has been replied, and therefore the administration has denied me the information as under:

Para No. 2 No information has been given against this.

Para No. 3 I had asked that how many officers were inducted. Reply has been given – “notified” , which is not the information I asked.

Para No. 5 No reply has been given against this.

Para No. 6 I had asked that under which rule ‘?’ and had also asked for the copy of the rule. No opinion has been asked. Hence it clear denial of information.

Para No. 7 I had asked for the file noting where a person inducted on 14.01.05 can be senior to a person inducted on 01.04.02. Also the status of the competent authority who approved this decision was asked. This has not been replied.

Para No. 8 It was also asked whether any legal opinion was taken. A copy of which was also asked. Nothing has been told.

The reply given is totally misleading. If the orders of Hon’ble Court has said that a person of 01.04.02 should be made junior to to a person of 14.01.05, that order should have been quoted and copy provided.

I do not know if any writ petition has been filed, when this has been filed, what has been filed, should have been told. If the judgement has been implemented - as has been claimed - then what for the writ petition.

Moreover the judgment was delivered on 29.01.2010 and more that 10 months have already been passed, then it can be appealed. What does 1717 of 2008 says, is not known to me. Nor the decision of CIC dated 08.04.10 is known to me . A copy

of the same should have been made available while making any mention of the same.

The writ petition, it seems, is just to avoid giving me the information asked for.

It is requested that the required information may please be made available.

An urgent reply is requested please.


No: 166 19th October, 2010

The Central Public Information OfficerUnion Public Service commissionDholpur HouseShahjehan RoadNew Delhi

Sub: Seeking information under RTI Act, 2005

Sir,

1 What are the rules for deciding the seniority among

Group ‘B’ officers inducted to Group ‘A’. Please

arrange to provide the copy of all relevant rules on this

subject.

2 Please indicate that if a few officer are inducted to

Group ‘A’ ( from Group ‘B’) on 01/04/02 and few on

14/01/05, who will be senior under the extant rules.

3 Is there are certain conditions, under which a officer

inducted in Group ‘A’ on earlier date, can be junior to

officers inducted on later years/dates. Please provide

copy of such rules.

4 Whether on induction to Group ‘A’ or any modification

in the induction date, the gazette notification is required

to be issued.

5 Please intimate, if an induction to Group ‘A’ is made,

from some specific date say 14/01/05 with UPSC

sanction, whether the consent of UPSC is required to

be obtained, if the date of induction is modified.

(Y.S. Chaudhary) Dy.Chief Engineer/Survey,

Tilak Bridge Rly.Stn., New Delhi

Mobile No.9717630254DA: Postal Order No: for Rs.10//-

No.165 Dated : 19/10/2010

Chief Public Information OfficerRailway BoardRail BhawanNew Delhi

Sub: Information sought under RTI Act, 2005. Ref: Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi judgment delivered On 29/01/2010 in the O.A. No. 280/08 ( Y S Chaudhary VS. U.O.I.) ***

Sir, The judgment has been delivered in the case referred above. The following information may kindly be given.

1 Whether the judgment delivered in case no. 280/08 ( Y S Chaudhary Vs U.O.I.) on 29/01/2010, has been implemented.

2 If so, copy of gazetted notification issued in favour of the applicants modifying their date of induction may kindly be given.

3 If not, whether the govt. has decided to go in appeal against the said judgment.

4 If so, whether the govt. has already filed the appeal.

5 If so, whether the govt. has given the copy of the writ petition to these applicants who have filed the caveat application in the High Court, a copy was given to the government/administration under the acknowledgement. (Caveat No..................).

6 Copies of the file noting, in details where it has been decided to

implement the judgment, or if not, to go in appeal, in the court, alongwith the submissions, and the approval of the competent authority may please be given.

DA: Postal order No.423537 for Rs. 10/


No.164 Dated : 19/10/2010


Sub: Information sought under RTI Act, 2005. Ref: Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi’s judgment delivered on 29/01/10 No: 280/08 ( Y S Chaudhary Vs U.O.I.). ***

Sir,

The following information may please be given in reference to the above.

1 It has been decided by the govt. to grant the date of induction, as 01/04/02 instead of earlier date 14/01/05 to five applicants.

It is requested that the file notings in respect with the decision taken, to grant the date 01/04/02, and then for not giving weightage of 5 years i.e. w.e.f. 01/04/97, right from the receipt of the judgment in the Railway Board, to the date the compliance report was submitted, alongwith the approval of the competent authority and also of law

officer, if so taken, may kindly be made available.

2 If the ante dating issue was referred to UPSC and their approval obtained. If not, the file notings, where it has been decided not to reopen the case to UPSC, and ante date the date of induction, with details, may kindly be furnished alongwith the approval of the competent authority to take such decisions.

3 File sheets, calculating the DOITS of the officers so inducted from 01/04/02, and the copies of the rules mentioned therein or used for calculating the DOITS, may kindly be made available.

DA: Postal order No.423536 for Rs. 10/

( Jitender Kumar )AXEN/Track

No.163 Dated : 19/10/2010


Sub: Information sought under RTI Act, 2005. ***

Sir,

Kindly (i) arrange to supply the copies of all relevant rules, which are referred for deciding the DOITS of Group ‘B’ officers, inducted in Group ‘A’.

(ii) Also supply the copy/copies of rules referred for deciding the seniority of Group ‘B’ officers, inducted in Group ‘A’.

(iii) Please provide/copy/copies of rules according to which a Group ‘B’ officer inducted in Group ‘A’ w.e.f. 01/04/02 can be junior to Group ‘B’ officer inducted in Group ‘A’ w.e.f. 14/01/05.

(iv)

Please provide copies of rules, for granting the weightage to Group ‘B’ officers on their induction to Group ‘A’.

DA: Postal order No.423535

for Rs. 10/

( H.S. Sidhu)AXEN/Const.,

Office of Dy.CE/Const.,State Entry Road, New Delhi

No.162 Dated : 19/10/2010

Additional Member (Staff)Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,New Delhi

Sub: Information sought under RTI Act, 2005. Ref: Railway Board’s letter no. RB/RTI Cell/2010/ 010011386/CPIO-3/Final Reply dated 06/10/2010. ***

Sir,

The information given to me through this totally inadequate and incomplete.

The reply to my four queries cannot be given by attaching few papers which can be a reply to my first query.

Queries no. 2,3 & 4 are specific and have not been replied, specially query nos. 3 & 4.

It is requested that reply against para No. 3 & 4 be given specifically, as the papers attached do not go reply to my query.

It may be stated that whether the date of induction of the remaining officers remains as 14/01/05, which is no where indicated in the enclosed papers.

Similarly, I have asked one simple question, whether a person having the date of entry as 01/04/02 or a person having date of induction as 14/01/05, shall be similar. No where I have talked about DOITS, which these papers enclosed are speaking.

Both of these queries are independent of the question no. 2.

An early reply is requested. (S.K. Bansal ) B-3/4, Jeevan Jyoti Apartment Near Lok Vihar, Pitampura Delhi-110 034

No.161 Dated : 19/10/2010


Sub: Information sought under RTI Act, 2005. ***

Dear Sir,

The following information may kindly be furnished.

1 If a date of induction in Group ‘A’ for few Group ‘B’ officer is 01/04/02 and the date of induction of the few officers is 14/01/05 then who will be considered to be senior.

2 Please give copy / copies of the rules related to the fixing of seniority of Group ‘B’ officers inducted in Group ‘A’.

This may please be treated as urgent.

DA: Postal order No.88E 423534 for Rs. 10/

(S.K. Bansal ) B-3/4, Jeevan Jyoti Apartment Near Lok Vihar, Pitampura Delhi-110 034

No. 160

To, Date 5.10.10 Chief Public Information OfficerRailway Board Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

Sub: Information sought under right to information act, 2005.

Dear Sir,

The following information may kindly be furnished under RTI Act, 2005.

1 Whether any modification has been effected in the date of

the induction of few officers of the panel year 2002-03, in

view of Principal Bench of CAT’s judgment dated

29/01/2010 in case No. 280/08.

2 If so what modification has been made and for how many

officers.

3 What about the date of entry of the balance officers, whether

the same has also been modified. If so, make the copy

available if not, the receipt thereof.

4 Whether while modifying the date of induction of these

officers, the approval has been sought from the Board and

also Minister of Railways. If so, kindly make available the

copy of the note submitted for this approval, alongwith the

notings of all stages through which it passed.

5 Whether the modification in the date of induction, has been

notified in the Gazetted of India, if so, kindly make available

the copy of the said notification. If not, the reasons thereof.

An early reply is requested please.

Yours faithfully,

DA: Postal order No.

For Rs. 10/ ( Jitender Kumar )ADEN/Track Machine Line

Estate entry Road New Delhi

159To, Date 5.10.10

Chief Public Information OfficerRailway Board Rail Bhawan, New Delhi


Dear Sir, The Hon’ble Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi had directed vide their judgment dated 29/01/2010, in O A No: 280/08 ( Y S Chaudhary & Ors Vs U O I & Ors.) to (i) quash the Rly. Bd’s notification dated 18/06/06 regarding the DPC of Civil Engg. Panel 2002-03 (ii) To review the DPC for the panel 2002-03, (iii) To grant date of entry to the panel 2002-03 from earlier 14/01/05 to 01/04/02.It is requested that :-

1 Copy of the notification quashing the Rly. Bd’s notification dated 18/06/06, may please be made available.

2 Whether the revised notification has been issued in this reference, if so, kindly make available the copy of the modified notification.

3 Whether the DPC of the batch 2002-03 has been reviewed, if so by whom? and when ?

4 Whether the reviewed DPC has been approved by Board and the President of India (Minister of Railways) if so, kindly make available the copy of the noting for approval, and also the copy of the modified/review of DPC duly approved by the President of India may kindly be made available.

5 If the date of induction has been modified to 01/04/02, whether the benefit of due weightage has been produced to these officers.

6 According to rule, in existence, how much weightage of

seniority was due to these officers and what weightage has actually been given. If not 5 years, the reasons thereof.

7 What rules other than the rules in existence for grant of 5 years weightage have been made available. Please provide the copy of such rules and also copy of the notings where this weightage to be granted to these officers has been counted/calculated alongwith the status of competent authority approving the said calculations.


Yours faithfully,


For Rs. 10/ ( S K Bansal ) B-3/4, Jeevan oti Apartment Near Lok Vihar, Pitampura Delhi-110 034

158To, Date 5.10.10 Chief Public Information OfficerRailway Board Rail Bhawan, New Delhi


Ref: Railway Board’s letter no. RBI/RTI Cell/2010/010010216 Dated 16/08/10.

***

Dear Sir, In reference to the Railway Board’s letter under reference, it has been

stated that the Board (ME + MS) and MR’s approval was sought before ante dating

the date of induction to 01/01/84 from the earlier date 14.10.85.

1 Please provide the copy of the note submitted for obtaining

the approval of ME, MS & MR alongwith the concerned

noting of all officers to whom the said note was submitted.

2 Whether the notification altering the date of induction of Sh.

R K Gupta was notified, if so, kindly provide the copy of the

same.

3 Please also produce the copy of the notification which was

sent for Gazette of India for publication.

4 Whether the changing the date of induction or any

modification in induction is required to be approved by the

Minister of Railway. A copy of the relevant note may kindly

be made available.

Yours faithfully,


For Rs. 10/

( Jitendra Kumar )

ADEN/Track Machine Estate entry Road New Delhi

No.157 Dated : 5/10/2010



Ref: Judgment of Principal Bench of CAT, O.A. No. 280/08 in respect with Y S Chaudhary Vs. U.O.I. Dated 29/01/2010. *****Dear Sir,

A judgment was delivered on 29/01/2010, in the above mentioned case, for which a compliance report has also been issued on 9/7/2010, wherein persons, having been inducted to Group ‘A’ w.e.f. `1/4/02 have been shown junior to the persons inducted in Group ‘A’ w.e.f. 14/01/05.

1 It is requested that the file notings in respect with the above decision, right from the date the judgment received in the railways, to the date the final compliance report is submitted to the Court/applicants,

wherein such decision has been taken, alongwith submitted note, and decision, with legal opinion if any etc etc. and the final decision taken by the competent authority may kindly be made available.

2 It is also requested that the copies of the rules of the railways, mentioned therein or otherwise, if any, for arriving at such decision, may also be made available.

(H.S.Sidhu)AXEN,C/O DyCE/Constn

Estate entry Road New Delhi


For Rs. 10/

No.156 Dated : 5.10/2009

Chief Public Information OfficerRailway Board,Rail Bhawan, New Delhi


Ref: Judgment of Principal Bench of CAT, O.A. No. 280/08 in respect with Y S Chaudhary Vs. U.O.I. Dated 29/01/2010. *****Dear Sir,

Kindly arrange to provide me the following in respect with the above subject.

1 From which date all the five applicants in the said O.A. have been appointed/inducted to Junior Scale of IRSE.

2 Whether the notification in respect with modification in their

induction in Group ‘A’ is required to be issued, for publication in Gazette of India, if so, whether the same has been issued by the Railway administration, a copy of the same may please be made available.

3 How many total officers were appointed /inducted in Group ‘A’ Junior Scale in 2002-03 panel for induction, in IRSE Department and what was the date of appointment/induction of these officers.

4 How many of these officers have been given the modified date of induction.

5 What is the status of the date of induction to Junior Scale of the remaining (other than the applicant), i.e. whether it remains the same i.e. 14/01/05 or this has also been modified.

6 Under which rule of Railways/Government of India, a person appointed/inducted on 14/01/05 can be senior to a person inducted in Junior Scale from 01/04/02. Please make available a copy of such rule.

7 Copy of the file notings taking such decision, where a person inducted in 14/01/05, can be senior to the person inducted on 01/04/02, may please be made available alongwith the status of the competent authority, which has opposed such decision.

8 Whether a legal opinion has been obtained for such decision, if so, kindly make available the copy of the file notings in this connection submitting the proposal and approval etc.

An early supply of information is requested. DA: Postal order No. ( S.K. Bansal ) For Rs. 10/ B-3/4, Jeevan oti Apartment Near Lok Vihar, Pitampura Delhi-110 034

No. 155 Dated : 5.10.10


Sub: Information sought under RTI Act, 2005. *****Dear Sir,

1 Whether in a case of Shri Y S Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. U O I (O A No: 280/08) the Hon’ble Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi has delivered a judgment on 29/01/2010.

2 If so, whether the Hon’ble CAT has said that the panel of 2002-03, for civil engineers, for induction from 14/01/05, was delayed with no bonafide reasons, hence should be ante dated to 01/04/02, when the vacancies arose.

3 If so, whether the panel for 2002-03 has been ante dated from 01/04/02.atever

4 If not, the reasons thereof, and by when it is likely to be implemented from that date.

5 Whether the Hon’ble Court had also directed.

(i) To quash the notification dated 18/05/2006 of the Railway Board indicating the DOITS of Civil Engineering officers.

(ii) To review the DPC for the panel 2002-03.

6 If so whether the same has been complied with, if not the reasons thereof.

7 Please make available the copy of the notification quashing the notifications dated 18/05/2006.

8 Also make available the copy of the notification after review of the DPC, issued by the administration.

Yours faithfully,

DA: Postal Order No: For Rs.10/-.

( B.B.Garg)Astt.Executive Engineer/TMC

Track maintenance depot N.Rly ,Tugalakabad-44

Dated : 13/09/2009

154Chief Public Information OfficerRailway BoardRail BhawanNew Delhi


1 Whether it is a fact that in a judgment delivered on 29/01/2010, by the Hon’ble Principal bench of CAT, New Delhi in the case of Y S Chaudhary & Ors Vs U.O.I. and Ors (O A No. 280/08) of civil engineering Department, the Hon’ble Court has ruled that the panel for the vacancy year 2001 (2002-03), has been delayed to 14/01/05, without any valid reasons, hence it should be antedated effective from at least 01/04/2002 a date by which it should have been finalised.

2 If so, whether the panel for 2002-03, has since been ante dated w.e.f. 01/04/02.

3 If so, please make available the copy of the notification.

4 If not, the reasons thereof.

5 Whether the notification altering the induction date, is required to be published in the Gazette of India.

6 If so, whether it has been published.

7 If so, make a copy available.

8 If not the reasons thereof.

DA: Postal Order No: For Rs.10/-.

( Jatinder Kumar )Astt Executive Engineer

TMC / Line /Northern Railway State Entry Road, New Delhi

No. 146 Dated : 13/09/2009Chief Public Information OfficerRailway BoardRail BhawanNew Delhi


*****Dear Sir,

1 Whether a proposal for cadre restructuring for the cadre of Group ‘A’ officers was mooted/prepared/submitted in year 1990 or so for railway officers.

2 If so, what was the number of junior scale posts, indicated in the cadre strength, for all the organised departments, department wise.

3 Also indicate the cadre strength department wise & grade wise for all the departments existing at the time of proposal, and the cadre strength proposed after review.

Yours faithfully,DA: Postal Order No:88 E 383894 For Rs.10/-.

( S.K. Bansal ) B-3/4, Jeevan Jyoti Apartment Near Lok Vihar, Pitampura Delhi-110 034

No 147 Dated : 13/09/2009



1 Whether it is a fact that the sanctioned grade wise cadre strength of gazetted officers, used to be mentioned in the classified list of officers, against all zones, production units, other units of Indian Railways before 1990.

2 When this system of indicating the sanctioned cadre strength specially of Junior scale was discontinued and the reasons thereof.

3 What was the last classified list of officers, in which the cadre strength zone/unit wise were indicated and what was the junior scale cadre strength indicated/published department wise.

Yours faithfully,

DA: Postal Order No: 88 E 383895 For Rs.10/-.

(S.K. Bansal) B-3/4, Jeevan Jyoti Apartment Near Lok Vihar, Pitampura Delhi-110 034

No.148 Dated : 13/09/2009



1 Whether it is a fact that an compliance order has been issued in the case of Shri Y.S. Chaudhary & Ors. Vs U.O.I. & Ors. (case no:280/08) the judgment of which was delivered on 29/01/2010.

2 If so, whether it is also a fact, that for all the five applicants, the date of induction has been changed to 01/04/02.

3 Whether it is also a fact that the date of induction of other officers other than the applicants remains as 14/01/05 only.

4 If so, state that who will be senior as per rule the officer who has the date of induction as on 01/04./02 or the officers who have the date of induction as on 14/01/05.

Yours faithfully,


(S.K. Bansal) B-3/4, Jeevan Jyoti Apartment Near Lok Vihar, Pitampura Delhi-110 034

No.149 Dated : 13/09/2009

No. 150 Dated : 13/09/2009

Chief Public Information OfficerRailway BoardRail Bhawan

New Delhi

Sub: Information sought under RTI Act, 2005. Ref: Information regarding Junior Scale strength on Indian Railways . The information given vide (i) RTI Cell No. 3220/09 dtd. 23/05/09. (ii) RTI Cell No. 3222/09 dtd. 13//05/09. (iii) RTI Cell No. 3224/09 dtd. 15/05/09. (iv) RTI Cell No. 6387/09 dtd. 04/01/10. (v) RTI Cell No. 6388/09 dtd. 06/01/10. (vi) RTI Cell No. 6389/09 dtd. 04/01/10. (vii) RTI Cell No. 6390/09 dtd. 12/01/2010 (viii) Nos. of appeal in respect with these *****

Dear Sir,

Kind attention is drawn to the above mentioned letters of the Railway Board giving certain informations regarding junior scale cadre strength on Indian Railways. It has been observed, that the Railway administration is not extending the informations called for. Therefore, para wise information is not being supplied despite request in this respect. IN most of the cases, certain photocopies of the noting are enclosed, without giving the para wise informations, saying that the notings will give all the information, which is not the position. IN view of this, this consolidated information is being asked which may kindly be furnished against each query even at the cost of the repetition.

It is requested that :-

1 (i) When we arrived at the number of 1273. JS posts and its distribution department wise.

(ii) What is the basis/procedure/formula of distributing these 1273 posts among various departments i.e. why the civil engineers department was given 304 posts, IRSSE 191 and IRPS only 78.

(iii) Copies of the notification fixing the said number and distribution may please be made available.

(iv) In one of the reply, it is said that 1273 was decided in 2005 or so and one noting indicates that this number was sent to DOP&T for cadre structuring in

nineties which is the correct statement.

(v) What was the number of JS posts fixed for general administration cadre of officers.

2 (i) When was the leave reserve strength 602 was finalized initially. Copy for notification/file notings fixing this strength be made available.

(ii) What was the basis/formula/procedure/criterion of fixing the leave reserve strength for different departments i.e. 143 for Mechanical and also 110 for Civil engineering Department.

(iii) The reasons of not increasing the number of leave reserve strength which was perhaps fixed in eighties, now when the total strength of officers has increased to at least double and even more.

(iv) Whether there is a proposal to increase this, if so, when, if not, the reasons thereof.

(v) How the 30 nos. of leave reserve posts for general cadre are filled in the present time.

3 In the RTI reply 92 it was said that the junior scale cadre and leave reserve strength could not to be merged in few departments which have now been merged, if so.

(i) In what way the total of 1273 posts of junior scale plus the 602 posts can be 1647 + 30 = 1677 posts.

(ii) If the civil engineer’s share in 1273 was 304, how the overall JS & leave reserve case be only 295, when and where decision has been taken to reduced the 304 no. To 185 (295 minus 110 LR) copy of the specific decision to reduce the number of Civil Engineering and Accounts may kindly be made available.

(iii) If in 1647 now fixed as strength of junior scale excluding G A cadre, it is observed that the share of all departments in 1647 is almost the total of their share in 1273 and the leave reserve posts except for civil engineers, account’s departments. Then why the same formula could not be adopted for Civil Engineering & Accounts whether a specific decision has been taken for this, if so make available the copy of the said notification / noting / decision.

4. The reasons for the distribution of posts in junior scale (1273) as also in leave reserve (602), being not done on the basis of total Group ‘A’ posts in each departments, may please be furnished and the relevant noting /decision/notification etc may kindly be made available.

It is further requested that if the explanation are not given fully, and the administration wants that the meeting is necessary. Then the address and telephone number of competent authority may please be provided to avoid delay in appeals.

The reasons of lengthy requests is on account of improper / insufficient information supplied in number of RTIs, which, it is requested, may kindly be avoided this time.





1 Whether it is a fact that a note was submitted for enhancement in the cadre strength of junior scale posts in the cadre of Accounts officers of Indian Railways by Financial commissioner in the Railway Board, about 1-2 year’s back.

2 Whether this proposal, was also from increasing the number of inductions for Group ‘A’ from Group ‘B’ cadre.

3 If so, what was the cadre strength of junior scale posts for Accounts Deptt., existing and what was the enhancement proposed.

4 What is the status of this proposal / note today.

5 Please make available the copy of the proposal and the concerned file notings in this connection.

Yours faithfully,



151 Dated: 13/09/2010The Additional Member (Staff)Railway Board

Rail BhawanNew Delhi

Sub: Information sought under RTI Act, 2005. Ref: (1) Your letter No: RTI Cell/2010/010010214 (CPIO-3 ( Final reply – receipt dated 11.8.2010 ) *****

Sir,

The information given against my request for information has not been given properly. It is therefore request that complete information may kindly be given.

I had requested for detailed information with specific points, wherein the reply given to me pertains to para one only.

Information given against para 2 to 6 has not been given at all, which I feel is denial of information to me.

Please give specific information point to point, separately and necessary notifications issued, may kindly be made available at the earliest.. Since the information requested is the part of the original application, time taken for replying the appeal may kindly be reduced drastically.

Yours faithfully,


152Dated : 13/09/2010

The Additional Member (Staff)Railway Board

Rail BhawanNew Delhi

Sub: Information sought under RTI Act, 2005. Ref: (1) Your letter No: RTI Cell/2009/6387/CPIOII Dated 4.1.2010 & 16.2.2010. (2) My appeal dated 19.3.10. *****

Dear Sir, It is regretted that the reply to my appeal dated 19.3.10 (copy enclosed) has not yet been given.

It is requested that the information asked for may kindly be furnished at the earliest.

Yours faithfully,DA: As above.


No: 145 Dated: 30.07.2010

The Chief Public Information OfficerMinistry of RailwayRailway BoardNew Delhi

Sub: Supply of information under RTI Act, 2005 ***


1. Whether it is a fact that an compliance order has been issued in the case of Shri Y.S. Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Case No: 280/08) by the judgment of which was delivered on 29.01.2010.

2. If so whether it is also a fact, that for all the five applicants the date of induction has been changed to 01.04.02.

3. Whether it also a fact that the date of induction order of officers other than the applicants remains as 14.01.05 only.

4. If so, state, that who will be senior as per rule the officer who has the date of induction as 01.04.02 or the officers who have the date of induction as 14.01.05.

G.B.Singh

No:136 Dated: 14.7.2010




1. Whether in a case decided by Hon’ble CAT / New Delhi on 29.1.10,-Y.S.Chaudhary vs. U.O.I. (case No. 280/08), judgment delivered has been implemented and a compliance report submitted. i) If so, when,

ii) Please make available a copy of the said compliance report.

2. Whether as per the said judgment, the penal issued vide Rly Board’s notification No.E(0)I/2005/SR-6/27 Dated 18.5.06 has been quashed. ii) If so please make available the letter quashing the said notification.

3. Whether as per the Hon’ble Court decision the review DPC has since been conducted. ii) If so, kindly make available the copy/ list of reviewed DPC.

4. Whether as per direction of the Hon’ble Court, the date of the induction for the officers has been modified to the due date of DPC, say 01.4.02. ii) If so kindly make available the copy of such notification.

5. Please indicate the date of effect of the reviewed DPC also please make available the copy of said notification, fixing the date of effect of the DPC panel.

6. What is the date of effect of this panel (with list) ? ii) How many persons have been included in the said reviewed panel (with list) ? iii) How many officers, which were their in earlier panel have been left over in the reviewed panel, (with names), iv) And how many new persons have been added in the reviewed panel with names with reasons thereof in both the cases.

An early information is requested.

( S K Bansal ) B-3/4, Jeevan Jyoti Apartment

Near Lok Vihar Pitampura DelhiDA: Postal Order No:84E 135958 for Rs.10//-

No : 137 Dated : 14.7.2010


Sub: Supply of information under RTI Act, 2005


1. Whether one Sh. R.K. Gupta – a Civil Engineer Group ‘B’ Officer of W.Rly. was given the benefit of seniorities/ induction from the date of vacancy i.e. 01.1.1984 on account of a CAT Bombay Judgement dated 20.9.1991 (OA No.177/86), the appeal of government for which, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

2. If so whether the said judgement was implemented by the Railway Board, if so when it was implemented. ii) Make available a copy of this letter implementing the same. (Hint – letter No.E/GP/86/1/76 dated 27.5.1995)

3. Whether all the seniors of Sh. R.K. Gupta in the said panel were also given the benefit of this antedating of Sh. R.K. Gupta. ii) If not the reasons thereof.

4. Once a judgement is given by CAT, confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and implemented by the administration, the reasons of not giving the benefit of this judgement duly accepted by the administration, to the officers subsequently inducted with delayed DPCs, may kindly be enumerated.

5. The reasons specially for making Sh.R.K. Gupta, senior to his seniors to whom benefit of due date of DPCs was not extended may kindly be enumerated. ii) The copies of file notings decision for extending the benefit to Sh.R.K. Gupta only and not to others may also be made available.



Mobile No.9717630254DA: Postal Order No:84E 135959 for Rs.10//-

No : 138 Dated : 14.7.2010




1. Whether it is a fact the Hon’ble New Delhi CAT has given a judgement, in the case of Civil Engineers in January,2010, that the delay in their DPCs being not bonafide, the DPC effective date should be from the date the DPC was due as per model calander.

2. If so, when this judgement was delivered and when the same is likely to be implemented.

3. Whether it is fact, that the Railway Board while writing to DOPT vide letter No.E/GP/2004/1/23 dated 01.7.2004 has recommended that the DPC be effective from the date due, the delay being administrative only and therefore the demand of Promotee Officers was considered to be genuine.

ii) If so make the copy of the said letter available.

4. Also, please indicate that whether the administration now will implement their own recommendation, after this judgement.

ii) If so by when.



Mobile No.9717630254DA: Postal Order No:84E 135960 for Rs.10//-

No : 139 Dated : 14.7.2010




1. Whether it is a fact that the Promotee Officers of Signal & Telecommunication department have gone to Court in Delhi for redressed of their grievance for delayed DPCs.

2. If so when this petition has been filed in New Delhi CAT.

3. If so whether the appeals is being fought by the Board. If so, when the reply of the administration has been filed, if not by when this is likely to be filed.



Mobile No.9717630254DA: Postal Order No:for Rs.10//-

No : 140 Dated : 14.7.2010




1. What are the rules for fixing inter-se seniority of same panel for Group’B’ Officers for LGS (Seniority based) selection and for LDCE (merit based) selection. ii) Please make available the copies of the relevant rules for both.

2. How is the panel seniority of Group ‘B’ officers fixed in LDCE exams.

3. Is the seniority plays any role in fixation of inter-se seniority or placing officers in panel. ii) If yes, the necessary details of rules/ regulations may kindly be given.

4. How is the seniority is fixed in Mech. And Traffic departments where streamwise selections are made, give copies of relevant rules/ regulations.

5. Whether the streamwise selections are still being conducted, ii) If not, since when these have been merged, iii) give a copy of the notification.



Mobile No.9717630254DA: Postal Order No:for Rs.10//-

No : 141 Dated : 14.7.2010




1. Whether the seniority of officers passed/fixed earlier was revised later ii) And has again been revised on W.C.Rly. for the year 2005 selection.

2. Give the dates of earlier fixation, the date it was revised, ii) And the date when it has been finally been revised.

3. Please give the rules/ regulations adopted initially for fixation of seniority and the rules/ regulations adopted for revising it, and again the rules/ regulations revising it finally.

4. Make available the copies of these file notings and the decision of the Competent Authorities for deciding the seniority for all the Three times.



Mobile No.9717630254DA: Postal Order No:for Rs.10/-

No : 142 Dated : 14.7.2010




1. What is the status of DPCs for all the 8 Organized cadre for Group ‘B’ officers induction to Group ‘A’ and also for all the misc. Categories for the vacancies of the year (as on 01.7.2010)

2008

panel year 2009-10

2009

panel year 2010-11

2010

panel year 2011-12

2. When the DPC were supposed to be finalized for all these years as per the model calendar for all categories including misc. Categories.

3. What are the vacancies due for all these years, year-wise, category-wise.

4. What is the reason for the delay in finalizing the DPCs.

5. By when these are likely to be finalized.


TMC / Line /Northern RailwayState Entry Road, New Delhi

DA: Postal Order No:84E 135961 for Rs.10/-

No.143 Dated 16.7.2010

The Additional Member (Staff)Ministry of Railways

Rail Bhawan,New Delhi

Sub: Information sought under RTI Act 2005

Ref: Your letter No.RTI Cell/2010/8057/CPIO-II (Final reply dt.23.4.2010).

Sir,

Vide your letter above, I was informed that the information asked by me is being collected and shall be made available as the earliest possible.

The question was asked on 19.3.2010. The information has not yet been supplied to me through about 4 months have already passed. Please let me know by when the same is likely to be submitted.

As per this information given to me, the vacancies for 2004-05 for traffic were 27 and whereas for Civil it was 57. Based on this the vacancies for 2005 onward which were fixed at 44, the number of Civil Engg. Post (on the same ratio) should have been 96.

The reasons of granting only 76, may please be given on the criteria for fixing the posts for different departments may kindly be furnished.

Moreover while giving the reply to me, it has been mentioned that the same is final reply whereas as per your admission the information is yet to be furnished finally.


( S K Bansal ) B-3/4, Jeevan Jyoti Apartment

Near Lok Vihar Pitampura Delhi

No. 144 Dated: 16.7.2010

The Additional Member (Staff)Ministry of Railways Rail Bhawan,New Delhi

Sub: Information sought under RTI Act, 2005

Ref: Your letter No.RTI Cell/2010/01008057 dt.09.4.2010

Sir,

Vide your letter under reference; I was given only interim reply. Final reply has not yet been given to me though more than 3 months have already passed since your interim reply and 4 months from my application.

An early reply may please be given.

( S K Bansal ) B-3/4, Jeevan Jyoti Apartment Near Lok Vihar Pitampura Delhi

No : 4 Dated : 4.6.2010




The Additional Member (Staff)Ministry of Railways Dated 7.610Rail Bhawan,New Delhi

Sub: Appeal reg: RTI reply for 6387 dated 09/01/2010. Reply of my appeal for the same dated 19/01/2010.

Sub:

Ref: Your RTI Cell/2010/8058/CPIO-II (Final reply).

In response to the above, the following information may kindly be

furnished under RTI Act, 2005.

1, One vacancy pertaining to 9.7.1997, was not taken in account,

came to notice in 2008 only i.e. after more than 11 years. How this

came to notice after 11 years may please be indicated.

2. Whether there was no appeal in between, against this fault, for 11

years.

3. How many DPCs were conducted after 14.9.2000, if so when.

4. Whether the availability of vacancies or cadre structure/vacancy

availabilities is not received every year. If not how this was

calculated/noticed in 2008.

5. When the left over vacancy actually came to notice, concerning file

notings, indicating the fault of calculation, and the decision

taken/approval obtained of competent authority for review after 11

years, the reasons indicated for the fault etc, may please be made

available.

6. The copies of the proposal sent to UPSC for review, justifying the

need in review after 11 years and also the correspondences taken

place between UPSC and Railway administration may please made

available.

7. Under what circumstances, no vacancy was available from

14.9.2000 to 31.12.08, may please be made available.

8. System of calculations of vacancies for unorganized services may

please be made available.

( S.K. Bansal )

No : Dated : 4.6.2010


Sub: Supply of information under RTI Act, 2005

***

1. Some selections for induction of Group ‘B’ officers in Group ‘A’ for

Electrical department were conducted from 1990 to 1996, please

indicate the number of vacancies for which these selection were made

and how many officers were actually selected against these posts year

wise/panel wise vacancies.

No : 131 Dated : 7.6.2010



1. The Group ‘A’ office5s of Electrical department were granted a large

number of vacancies for induction to Group ‘A’ vide Railway Board’s

letter no: E(GP)91/1/54 dated 25.4.92, 15.7.92, 12.10.92, 24.12.92 &

7.10.94 and E(GP)92/1/54 dated 25.5.93, 20.8.93, 1.8.94, 7.10.94 &

15.9.95 and E(GP)/93/1/54 dated 5.10.94 and 28.4.95.

These DPCs were taken up back/revised subsequently in 1996.

Please indicate the authority by which the vacancies were revised

in later years. The copy of the direction to take back the additional

vacancies and also the file notings having the decision and sanction of

the competent authority to the decision, that it should be taken back

may please be made available.

( P.S. Dhaka)

The Additional Member (Staff)Ministry of Railways Dated 19.3.10Rail BhawanNew Delhi

Sub: Appeal reg: RTI reply for 6387 dated 1.5.2010. Ref: RTI Cell/2010/8156/CPIO-II/Final Reply dated 1.5.2010.

The information given to me is not complete hence not satisfactory.

Kindly furnish the following clarifications.

1. I had asked the number of vacancies to be filled in electrical

department for the year 1989, `1990, 1991, 1992, 93. 94. 95, 96 & 97

and additional vacancies (52) for Group ‘B’ and promotee officers.

Against this, I have been given the information that the vacancies

were restricted to 40% of the total vacancies.

This was not the information called for. The question is how many

vacancies were initially allotted for these years, year wise, which may

please be furnished.

2. Against how many officers were selected is no where been replied,

year wise number of persons is required to be given please.

3. Though the names of the persons selected has been given, but the

information asked for was names selected year wise. This information

should be the names of the officer selected against which years

vacancy.

4. The Annexure-III indicates only 1 person on 3.3.92 whether only one

person was selected on 3.3.92. If so, against which year’s vacancy he

was selected; may please be indicated same is for other also on

21.02.1993. 48 officers have been indicated. Against which year these

officers have been selected may please be indicated.

Against Para 4 of my query & I am required to be informed that

what was the reason of taking back the vacancies in 1996, which may

please be elaborated.


( P.S. Dhaka )

The Additional Member (Staff)Ministry of Railways Dated 7.610Rail Bhawan,New Delhi


Sub:

Ref: Your RTI Cell/2010/8058/CPIO-II (Final reply).

In response to the above, the following information may kindly be

furnished under RTI Act, 2005.

1, One vacancy pertaining to 9.7.1997, was not taken in account,

came to notice in 2008 only i.e. after more than 11 years. How this

came to notice after 11 years may please be indicated.

2. Whether there was no appeal in between, against this fault, for 11

years.

3. How many DPCs were conducted after 14.9.2000, if so when.

4. Whether the availability of vacancies or cadre structure/vacancy

availabilities is not received every year. If not how this was

calculated/noticed in 2008.

5. When the left over vacancy actually came to notice, concerning file

notings, indicating the fault of calculation, and the decision

taken/approval obtained of competent authority for review after 11

years, the reasons indicated for the fault etc, may please be made

available.

6. The copies of the proposal sent to UPSC for review, justifying the

need in review after 11 years and also the correspondences taken

place between UPSC and Railway administration may please made

available.

7. Under what circumstances, no vacancy was available from

14.9.2000 to 31.12.08, may please be made available.

8. System of calculations of vacancies for unorganized services may

please be made available.

( S.K. Bansal )

No : Dated : 4.6.2010



1. Some selections for induction of Group ‘B’ officers in Group ‘A’ for

Electrical department were conducted from 1990 to 1996, please

indicate the number of vacancies for which these selection were made

and how many officers were actually selected against these posts year

wise/panel wise vacancies.

No : 131 Dated : 7.6.2010



1. The Group ‘A’ office5s of Electrical department were granted a large

number of vacancies for induction to Group ‘A’ vide Railway Board’s

letter no: E(GP)91/1/54 dated 25.4.92, 15.7.92, 12.10.92, 24.12.92 &

7.10.94 and E(GP)92/1/54 dated 25.5.93, 20.8.93, 1.8.94, 7.10.94 &

15.9.95 and E(GP)/93/1/54 dated 5.10.94 and 28.4.95.

These DPCs were taken up back/revised subsequently in 1996.

Please indicate the authority by which the vacancies were revised

in later years. The copy of the direction to take back the additional

vacancies and also the file notings having the decision and sanction of

the competent authority to the decision, that it should be taken back

may please be made available.

( P.S. Dhaka)

No : 135 Dated : 26.4.2010


Sub: Supply of information under RTI Act, 2005 *** Kindly arrange to supply the following information:

1. I) Whether it is a fact that a proposal was mooted in 1989 or so for granting one time additional vacancies for Group ‘B’ officers’ induction in Group ‘A’ based on stagnation.

ii) If so, how many additional vacancies were proposed and for which department.

iii) Copy of letters written to UPSC recommending the same may please be made available, iv) Reasons for such recommendations.

2. Whether this recommendation was accepted by UPSC

ii) if so, how many additional vacancies were actually approved for which departments.iii) Make available the copy of the letter of the UPSC approving the same.

3 i) Whether a letter was issued after the approval of the UPSC on Railways.

ii) If so, kindly make available the copy of such letters ( or if not issued copy of the file notings if any).

Note: Please note that reply of each item is requested separately,not in clubbed position

DA/ Postal order no.135957 For Rs. 10/ ( Y.S. CHAUDHARY)

Dy.Chief Engineer/Const. Mahabat Khan Road Tilak Bridge Rly.Station New Delhi.

No: 132 Dated: 19.3.2010

The Central Public Information OfficerUnion Public Service commissionDholpur HouseShahjehan RoadNew Delhi

Sub: Seeking information under RTI Act, 2005

Sir,

1. Whether it is a fact that instruction exist, that for Group ‘A’ induction DPC, even officers who have retired by the time the DPC is conducted, are required to be considered for the DPC?

2. If so, whether the retired officers are supposed to be promoted to Group ‘A’ specially when the vacancies pertain to the period much before their retirement. What shall be the date of effect of this promotion?

3. If they are not promoted, then why and how the vacancies are considered to be filled? If the vacancies are filled, why these vacancies are not given subsequently or at least from the date of their retirements, especially when the vacancies were due to be filled much before their retirement.

4. If the retired official’s names are included in the panel, but they are actually not promoted, then what benefits actually accrue to them? Whether they can enjoy the status of Group ‘A’, if not how the vacancies are considered to have been filled.

5. If the vacancies are not filled, then how the shortfall in quota is fulfilled and when.

DA: Postal Order No:84E 135954 for Rs.10/- Yours faithfully


TMC / Line /Northern RailwayState Entry Road, New Delhi

No : 131 Dated : 19.3.2010

The Chief Public Information OfficerMinistry of Railway

Railway BoardNew Delhi


Kindly arrange to supply the following information:

1. Whether it is a fact, that a number of vacancies used to be carried forward against officers selected but promoted against sealed cover cases, and also against those which are selected, but not permitted.

2. If so, kindly give number of vacancies forward against each category (sealed cover /retirements), but not promoted during the vacancy years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 & 2004 department wise.

3. State the number of posts, for which DPCs were conducted for the vacancy years 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006 separately for Civil & Traffic departments.

4. What was the total number of officers put in sealed cover and also the total number of officers who were selected, but could not be promoted due to retirements, department wise for the period of 2003 to 2006, for Civil & Traffic department.

5. What steps are being taken to fill these vacancies, and by when.

( S K Bansal )B-3/4, Jeevan Jyoti Apartment

Near Lok Vihar Pitampura DelhiDA: Postal Order No:84E 135955 for Rs.10//-

No.133 March 19, 2010

The Public Information Officer

Ministry of RailwayRailway BoardNew Delhi

Sub: Information sought under Right to Information Act, 2005 – DPC for public relation. Ref: Your office letter no: E(GP)2007/3/16 dated 22/01/09. ***

Attention is drawn to Railway Board notification no. E(GP)2007/3/16 dated 22/01/09 regarding promotion of P.R.O.

The following information may kindly be furnished :

1. Whether the said promotion have been made on account of DPC of PRO on Indian Railway.2. (i) If so, when this DPC was conducted.(ii) when the minutes of DPC were approved/signed by UPSC.3. (i) When was the DPC earlier to this were conducted for PRO.(ii) When the said minutes were signed.(iii) how many officers were empanelled (give name & Railways) and(iv) what was the date of effect of this promotion.4. (i) What is the seniority of fixing date of effect as 14/09/2000.(ii) Reason of selecting the date as 14/09/2000 may please be indicated.5. (i) Why the promotion have been effected from 14/09/2000 &(ii) Why notification has been issued on 22/01/09 after more than 8 years.6. What is the reason’s of conducting this DPC in 2008-09.7. Quote the rules under which the promotions were have been given after 8 years and why.8. The reason of superseding the notification no: E(GP)94/1/74 dated 28/09/07 may please be indicated.


Near Lok Vihar Pitampura DelhiDA: Postal Order No: 84E 135956 for Rs.10//-



Ref: Your letter no: RTI Cell/2009/6387/CPIO-II dated 04/01/2010 and 16/02/2010.Sir,

The perusal of the reply of my appeal, clearly indicate that the queries raised by me through my appeal have not yet been addressed satisfactorily and all the queries raised through my appeal have not been replied yet.

By the reply it is now clear that the original reply given by the administration that there was segression before 2001, was wrong as per their an reply in my appeal, where in it has been mentioned that the LR/JS strength was existing before sixties and some thing has been issued on 31/03/1980.

It may be cleared that when was final LR/JS strength after 31/3/1980, department wise the same may please be furnished.

2. If the classified lists published in eighties and nineties contained the strength of Jr. Scale and also LR/Jr. Scale foe each department and each zone separately. Then how this statement that there exist no separate JS strength may kindly be explained.

3. Similarly the strength shows 1273 was available in the cadre restructure papers in 1992 as per PP-54 enclosed with my reply may kindly be explained.

4. I had requested that reply to my queries be given separately, without using brackets even at the cost of repetition, has not been given importance even after my appeal which may please be evoked into.

5. A specific request that the reasons/formula/calculations to arrive at the presently sanctioned JS regular and also JS/LR strength may kindly be furnished has not been replied which is requested now.

6. It is now requested that reply to my original RTI query as also my appeal may kindly be furnished in detail.

7. Finally though I have been asked to visit Railway Board for more clarifications, on a mutually agreed date, it has not been mentioned that how this date can be decided mutually with whom, and who will be the official, meeting me. The official concerned should be fairly senior capable of giving right information and take right decision. I should also be permitted for perusal of all concern papers.



Near Lok Vihar Pitampura DelhiThe Additional Member (Staff)Ministry of Railways Dated 19.3.10Rail BhawanNew Delhi

Sub: Appeal reg: Information through RTI –October,2005

Junior scale strength in General cadre.

Ref: Railway Board’s letter no: RTI Cell/2009/6390/CPIO-II Dated 12/01/2010 and 02/02/2010

Sir,

The information to my queries has not been given satisfactorily as under :

Para 2 I had asked the number of Jr. Scale posts sanctioned as regular cadre for General cadre. For this I have been told that there is a combined strength of Jr. Scale, & Group ‘B’ as 88. This is not was asked.

Para 3 My queries were that how many of these have been filled regularly and how many officers have been inducted in Junior Scale during last 10 years.

Para 4 My query was if not filled regularly the reasons of not distributing these posts for other department may kindly be furnished.

The reply given against both these paras is just not relevant at all. It is known to everybody that the induction of Group ‘B’ in Group ‘A’ in 8 organised services is being made. Hence this is not the proper reply to my query.

It is requested that my queries may kindly be informed properly.


Near Lok ViharPitampura

Delhi


Sub: IInd appeal reg: Information under RTI Act,2005 Ref: Your letter no: RTI Cell/2009/6392/CPIO-II

Dated 04/01/2010. My appeal dated 19/01/2010.

Sir,

On your reply, I had given an appeal, but no reply yet has been received. May kindly expedite the same with parawise specific information, specially regarding para 3, 4 & 5.



Delhi


Sub: RTI -2005 information vide RTI No. 7077 dated 26/02/2010. Dear Sir,

The information given vide the above, is not satisfactory, as under :Para No. 3, 4, 5, 6 have not been replied.

(i) Para No.3, wanted that the reasons of delay in initiation of the DPC be given details in each case separately.(ii) As per modal calendar, the initiation of the DPC for the panel year 2009-10 be done in April 2008 itself and the same should be sent to UPSC by August, 2008, so that the DPC is finalised by December, 2008. The reasons of not following the system enumerated by the modal calendar may please be awaited. If the calling of seniority list itself will be called on 01/12/2008 ( as on 01/01/2009) how the DPCs are expected to be finalised by 31/03/09. The details may kindly be furnished.

Para 4 The date of initiation and also the date of sending final proposal for reach year was requested which has not been given and may kindly be given. It has been observed that after the final proposal is sent, lot of queries are raised by UPSC, which takes lot of time and thus delay. The reasons of inability of the Railway Department to send the complete information, as one go, even after so many years of experience, and not even in single case may kindly be enumerated and furnished.

It is appreciated that the work involved in enormous, but whether in no way that the DPCs can be placed in time whether it will always be delayed. The reason of failure of the administration, in actions taken and systems improvements alongwith strengthening the DPC organisation in Railways may kindly be enumerated.

Para 5 The reasons of not sending the in writing reminders may please be given. What is the time taken by the UPSC after their query is replied based on last years DPC may kindly be furnished.

Para 6 The reply to this query can not be “information not available”. It can be either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ with reasons.

An early reply may kindly be given. It is requested that reply may kindly be given specific to each query and not as a general information.

( Jatinder kumar )ADEN/Track Machine

State Entry Road,New Delhi


Sub: Appeal reg: information sought under RTI Act, 2005 Leave reserve strength. Ref: Your letter no: RTI Cell/2009/6389/CPIO-II

Dated 04/01/2010.

Sir,

The information given for my queries is not satisfactory as under :

Para-1 The reply given for this is wrong, in view of the PP-54 enclosed will you like to review it again. Moreover 1647 is nothing but a total of 1273 and 572 (LR) then how it can be said that this was fixed in 2007. This is required to be clarified.

Para-2 to 5 No reply has been given except enclosing few notings which are not giving any reply to my queries. Specific reply may please be given against each para, however, for information you may enclose the notings to authenticate the same.

Para – 3 to 5 Need very specific reply, which should be furnished.



Delhi


Sub: Appeal reg: RTI reply for 6387 dated 1.5.2010. Ref: RTI Cell/2010/8156/CPIO-II/Final Reply dated 1.5.2010.

The information given to me is not complete hence not satisfactory.

Kindly furnish the following clarifications.

1. I had asked the number of vacancies to be filled in electrical

department for the year 1989, `1990, 1991, 1992, 93. 94. 95, 96 & 97

and additional vacancies (52) for Group ‘B’ and promotee officers.

Against this, I have been given the information that the vacancies

were restricted to 40% of the total vacancies.

This was not the information called for. The question is how many

vacancies were initially allotted for these years, year wise, which may

please be furnished.

2. Against how many officers were selected is no where been replied,

year wise number of persons is required to be given please.

3. Though the names of the persons selected has been given, but the

information asked for was names selected year wise. This information

should be the names of the officer selected against which years

vacancy.

4. The Annexure-III indicates only 1 person on 3.3.92 whether only one

person was selected on 3.3.92. If so, against which year’s vacancy he

was selected; may please be indicated same is for other also on

21.02.1993. 48 officers have been indicated. Against which year these

officers have been selected may please be indicated.

Against Para 4 of my query & I am required to be informed that

what was the reason of taking back the vacancies in 1996, which may

please be elaborated.


( P.S. Dhaka )

Dear Madam Mamta Ji,

On 01.07.04, Railway Board had written a letter to UPSC, regarding the delay taking place in finalizing the DPCs for induction of Group ‘B’ officers in Group ‘A’ , and about the demand of the Federation

of Group ‘B’ officers, that since the delay in DPCs is always on administrative account, the date of effect theses DPCs should be from the date the DPCs are due. Railway Board in letter said that the demand of the Group ‘B’ officers is genuine, ( copy enclosed as Annexure ‘A’) hence they sought suitable guidelines on the subject; which however was not accepted by them. Now, on 29 th January, 2010, Hon’ble Principal Bench of CAT at New Delhi has given a judgment in a case (No.280/08) filed by Civil Engineers of Indian Railways directing the Railway Administration to give the effect of DPCs from the date if is due instead of from the date the same is finalized by the administration. Important extracts of the judgment are enclosed as annexure ‘B’ .

Now. Since the Court has ruled the same thing, as was recommended and considered genuine in the Railway administration, I feel that there is no logic of delaying the implementation of the said judgments for the Civil Engineering Officers of the Railways, which is actually being done by the administration as more than 4 months have already passed since the judgment.

I, therefore, urge upon you to intervene in the matter so that the judgment is implemented at the earliest.

An early action is requested please.

Yours sincerely,

DA: As above(Annexure ‘A’ & ‘B’)

Dear Madam Mamta Ji,

The DPCs for induction of Group “B” officers in Group ‘A’ is required to be conducted every year to fill up vacancies in Group ‘A’ . As per the instructions , on the subject by and even by PMOs, it should be ensured that DPCs are conducted in time, so that panel are available for promotion in Group ‘A’ in advance. Example, the DPCs for

the vacancies of panel year 2005-2006 should be finalized by 01.01.2005 positively. Instructions are so emphatic that there has been recommended that if the DPCs are delayed due to any reason, the definite responsibility be fixed on officials and the responsible persons bv taken up suitably. It is however, observed that these instructions are not being followed.

I would like to point out that DPCs for the years 2009-10 and 2010-2011 for Civil Engineering Department and also for other departments which should have been finalized by 01.01.2009, and 01.01.10 respectively, have not yet been sent even to UPSC, indicating the delay of years.

I request you to kindly intervene at the earliest, and impress upon the Railway Administration to ensure the finalization of DPC at the earliest.

I am sure that your positive intervention, shall relieve a large number of Group ‘B’ officers of their finalization; and early action is requested

· web viewno. 185 30/12/2010 . the additional member (staff) ministry of railways. railway...

Documents