Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed together for hearing and disposal.

Case No.	RTI Filed on	CPIO reply	First appeal	FAO
130085	15.12.2017	15.12.2017	12.03.2018	- -
130084	09.02.2018	- -	23.03.2018	- -
130086	09.02.2018	- -	23.03.2018	- -
130082	22.01.2018	22.02.2018 & 05.03.2018	12.03.2018	- -
130083	22.01.2018	- -	12.03.2018	- -
180087	22.01.2018	15.02.2018	12.03.2018	- -
148635	17.04.2018	27.04.2018 & 16.05.2018	28.05.2018	- -
148633	11.05.2018	14.05.2018 & 30.05.2018	28.06.2018	- -
158850	03.05.2018	09.06.2018	06.07.2018	- -

1. CIC/DTCOR/A/130085 of 2018

The Appellant filed the RTI application dated 15.12.2017 seeking information on two points:-

1. Provide copy of the first page of service books of the four employees mentioned in attached letter no. SN/D/RTI/2017/3576 dated 25.08.2017.

2. Provide the copy of transfer order vide which conductor 18020 was transferred from Sriniwas Puri to Kalkaji and Kalkaji to Sukhdev Vihar between January 2016 and May 2016.

PIO/Dy. C.G.M. (Tr.), HQ vide letter dated 15.12.2017 transferred the RTI application to the RM, South to transfer the application to concerned PIO under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 12.03.2018.Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the PIO/Depot Manager, DTC, Kalkaji Depot, New Delhi vide letter dated 27.01.2020 indicating that information sought by the appellant has been provided vide communication dated 28.12.2017. Furthermore, the First Appeal was also adjudicated and order dated 05.06.2018 was also issued.

2. CIC/DTCOR/A/130084 of 2018

3. CIC/DTCOR/A/130086 of 2018

The Appellant filed the same RTI applications dated 09.02.2018 seeking information on two points:-

1. Provide action taken report of application dated 16.11.2017 along with file notings.

2. Provide action taken report of application dated 30.11.2017 along with file notings.

Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 23.03.2018.Feeling aggrieved as neither the PIO nor the FAA furnished the information to the Appellant, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from PIO/Dy. CGM(Tr.) (H.Qrs.) vide letter dated 18.01.2020 in both cases, enclosing copy of order dated 05.06.2018 passed by FAA. Furthermore, copy of correspondence with RPFC dated 28.03.2018 and copy of information dated 28.05.2018 sent to CIC have also been placed on record.

4. CIC/DTCOR/A/130082 of 2018

The Appellant filed the RTI application dated 22.01.2018 seeking information on two points :-

1. Appellant may be informed whether he will get pension from DTC or RPFC.

2. What action has been taken on the DM by the department for the mistakes as evident from the attached letter no.PC/Misc./2013/341 dated 22.03.2003?

PIO vide letter dated 22.02.2018 provided information against point No. 1 and on point No. 2 stating that it pertains to Sriniwas Puri Depot.

Another reply was received from the PIO/Sri Niwas Puri Depot vide letter dated 05.03.2018 whereby information was denied stating that the query is hypothetical in nature.

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 12.03.2018. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

5. CIC/DTCOR/A/130083 of 2018

6. CIC/DTCOR/A/130087 of 2018

The Appellant filed the same RTI applications dated 22.01.2018 seeking information on two points: -

1. Inform as to what to fill in columns 1 to 8 of Form 10D? Provide account number and UAN number by filling the Form 10D.

2. Provide copy of past records and service book of the clerk, Sukhdev Vihar Depot who issues final payment releasing memo after retirement.

In respect of file No. CIC/DTCOR/A/2018/130087, PIO vide letter dated 15.02.2018 provided information against point No. 1 and denied information on point No. 2 under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 12.03.2018. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

7. CIC/DTCOR/A/148635 of 2018

The Appellant filed the RTI application dated 17.04.2018 seeking information four points:-

1. Provide the token numbers of the 28 employees mentioned in the attached letters whose service books have been marked with stamps Pension Opted and Pension not Opted.

2. Whether EPS 95 contribution is being deducted every month from their salary.

3. Whether these 28 employees will be entitled to pension from DTC?

4. Provide details of action taken regarding double stamps on the service books of these 28 employees. Provide copy of order, if any, from the Headquarter in this regard.

PIO/Regional Manager(South)/VVD, DTC vide letter dated 27.04.2018 provided information against points No. 1 and 2 and on points No. 3 and 4 it was informed that information does not pertain to their department.

Another reply was received from PIO/Wazirpur Depot, Delhi vide letter dated 16.05.2018 denied information under Section 8(i)(j) of the RTI act, 2005. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 28.05.2018. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

1. A written submission has been received from the PIO/Dy. CGM(M)(N) vide letter dated 23.01.2020 in this case indicating that response dated 16.05.2018 was sent to the appellant denying information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. An order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the CGM/FAA has also been placed on record.

2. A written submission has been received from the PIO/Depot Manager, DTC, S.N.P.D, New Delhi vide letter dated 27.01.2020 indicating that the RTI application was duly responded vide letter dated 27.04.2018 informing the appellant that information sought by him was not held with the answering respondent.

3. A written submission has been received from the PIO/Depot Manager, DTC, Kalkaji, New Delhi vide letter dated 27.01.2020 indicating that the RTI application was duly responded vide letter dated 04.05.2018 informing the appellant that information sought by him was not held with the answering respondent.

8. CIC/DTCOR/A/148633 of 2018

The Appellant filed the RTI application dated 11.05.2018 seeking information on two points: -

1. Provide copy of past record and service books of Shri Subhash Chandra, Depot Manager and Shri Subhash Chandra Bajaj, Accountant Sriniwas Puri Depot.

2. Provide copy of past records and service book of Shri Ved Prakash, Clerk, final payment releasing seat, Sukhdev Vihar Depot.

PIO/Sri Niwas Puri Depot, New Delhi vide letter dated 14.05.2018 denied information on point No. 1 under Section 8(i)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and on point no. 2 informed that information does not pertain to their department.

Another reply was received from the PIO/Sukhdev Vihar Depot, New Delhi vide letter dated 30.05.2018 whereby information on point No. 2 was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and on point No. 1 it was informed that information does not pertain to their department.

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 28.06.2018. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

1. A written submission has been received from the PIO/Dy. CGM(Tr.) (H.Qrs.) vide letter dated 18.01.2020, indicating that reply was sent to the appellant vide letter dated 08.08.2018 enclosing copy of FAA's order dated 25.10.2018.

2. A written submission has been received from the PIO/Depot Manager, DTC, S.N.P.D., New Delhi vide letter dated 27.01.2020 indicating that RTI queries were duly replied vide letter dated 23.05.2018. The answering respondent/PIO-Dy. CGM has further informed that FAA had advised the DM-SVD to calculate the amount and get the same vetted by Accounts Dept and take necessary steps for release of the pension to the appellant.

9. CIC/DTCOR/A/158850 of 2018

The Appellant filed the RTI application dated 03.05.2018 seeking information on two points: -

1. Provide copy of order letter No. LA/SC/7100/12/3314 and copy of the order of Delhi High Court in this regard.

2. Provide name of the officer who is responsible for converting 'Pension not Opted' to 'Pension Opted' as is evident from the case of Shri Vijay Singh, Driver, VAN No.1PP-46/57979?

PIO/Dy.CGM(S) vide letter dated 09.06.2018 stated as follows:-

Point No. 1:- Sought information pertains to Delhi Transport Corporation, Legal Department, HQ.

Point No. 2:- Does not pertain to this department.

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 06.07.2018. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Both parties are present for hearing. Respondent states that the background of the above appeals arises out of certain administrative discrepancy which occurred in calculation and payment of pensionary benefits to the Appellant. The Appellant had chosen the option of "pension not opted" during the tenure of his service while the CPF deduction from his salary to this effect was inadvertently not done by the concerned clerk. When this fact was discovered by the Respondent, they claimed the "un-deducted" sum alongwith 8.33% interest to be recovered from the Appellant. It is contended by the Respondent that the Appellant is undisputedly eligible for EPS 95 pension but he is not eligible for pension from DTC. Since the Appellant has not submitted the requisite documents to avail the said EPS 95 pension, though willing to disburse his pension, the Respondents are unable to do so.

10. It is the case of Appellant that his pension benefits have been denied completely to his detriment and because of an inadvertent and illegal action of the Respondent, he has suffered. The Appellant does not oppose payment of the amount which had not been deducted earlier by the Respondent from his salary, but the interest of 8.33% claimed by the Respondent is disputed by the Appellant. Appellant further states that he has already approached the Court seeking redressal of his grievance and also points out that the CIC has earlier adjudicated his case

s vide order/s dated 03.01.2018 in appeal no. CIC/DTCOR/A/2017/312209 and 31.05.2018 in a batch of 5 appeals no.CIC/DTCOR/A/2017/109451 & 4 more. Decision: 11. After hearing the detailed averments of the parties and perusal of the records, particularly the earlier orders passed by the predecessor Bench of this Commission, it is noted that the same issue as discussed in the above appeals, have been dealt in detail and speaking orders with specific directions had been issued by the Commission. Considering that the germane issue has been not once but by various decisions, adjudicated at length by the predecessor Bench of this Commission, a fresh adjudication of the same issue cannot be done on the same subject for the sake of propriety. Hence, this Commission directs the Respondent/PIO, DTC to furnish a detailed comprehensive action taken report mentioning the action taken by them with respect to the previous decisions issued by this Commission, including the ones mentioned in the preceding paragraph of this order. This action taken report shall in effect be treated as compliance report and the Commission shall take necessary action after perusal of the report, which should reach the Commission by 11.03.2020, after advance service of one copy to the Appellant. 12. The aforementioned appeals are thus disposed off with these directions.