AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)

    Ex Hav Faujdar Ojha v. Central Public Information Officer, Centralized Pension Processing Centre

    1. The issues under consideration arising out of second appeal dated 01.11.2016 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 10.08.2016 and first appeal dated 20.09.2016:

    (i) attested copy of One Rank One Pension (hereinafter called ‘OROP’) arrears calculation sheet of service pension,

    (ii) attested copy of OROP arrears calculation sheet of disability pension,

    (iii) whether he is entitled to get the service pension @ Rs. 7808 per month and disability opension @ Rs. 2343 per month w.e.f. 01.07.2017 or otherwise,

    (iv) if yes, up to when monthly pension will be corrected as per point (ii) above.

    2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 10.08.2016 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Centralized Pension Processing Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra. The CPIO did not furnish any reply to the RTI application. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 20.09.2016. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed second appeal dated 01.11.2016 before this Commission which is under consideration.

    3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 01.11.2016 inter alia on the grounds that no information or communication has been given by the CPIO as well as by the FAA. The appellant in the appeal dated 01.11.2016 has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO and the FAA to provide him the information and take necessary action to expedite the same.

    4. The CPIO and the FAA have not given any reply to the appellant.

    5.1. The appellant remained absent. The respondent Mr. Jayant Uplekar, CPIO, Centralized Pension Processing Centre, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conferencing.

    5.2. The respondent submitted that the appellant has withdrawn his appeal vide letter dated 29.01.2019 on account of receipt of complete and satisfactory information.

    6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case including the non-appearance of the appellant, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that the appellant has received due information. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

    7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Ex Hav Faujdar Ojha v. Central Public Information Officer, Centralized Pension Processing Centre
    (Feb 1, 2019)