Onlykashmir.in News Desk
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has sought explanations from officials of the Jammu and Kashmir Power Development Department (PDD) and the Kashmir Power Distribution Corporation Limited (KPDCL) over discrepancies in the handling of a Right to Information (RTI) application concerning the redesignation of employees appointed under compassionate appointment rules.
In an order, Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal directed the concerned Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) to submit written explanations about how the application was handled. The issues include the apparent delay in responding, inconsistencies in the replies and the absence of the PDD’s CPIO from the Commission’s hearing.
The application was filed by Abdul Hamid Mir and Faizan Aziz on October 18, 2024. It sought clarification on whether employees appointed under SRO-43 could seek redesignation from Junior Lineman or Class-IV posts to Orderly, and questioned the allocation of designations under the applicable recruitment rules.
According to the order, the applicants approached the CIC after alleging that they had received no response to their original application or to their first appeal. During the proceedings, KPDCL submitted copies of replies issued in February and March 2025, along with a further response dated March 10, 2026.
The Commission noted that these replies did not clearly establish that they related to the original application of October 18, 2024. It also observed that the PDD had referred the matter to KPDCL without clearly explaining the basis for the transfer or showing that the procedure prescribed under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act had been followed. That provision deals with the transfer of an application to another public authority when the information sought is held by it.
The order further recorded that the PDD’s CPIO did not attend the hearing and had not sought prior permission for the absence. The KPDCL representative was also unable to give a conclusive explanation of when the original application reached the corporation.
The Commission directed the PDD’s CPIO to submit a categorical explanation addressing the discrepancies and the absence from the hearing. The KPDCL CPIO was separately asked to explain why its replies did not identify the date of the original application. Both officials must respond within two weeks of receiving the order.
At the same time, the Commission observed that the original application sought hypothetical clarifications rather than specific records covered by Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines information. It therefore held that obstruction of the applicants’ right to information had not been established on that basis, and it disposed of the appeal while directing the officials to explain the procedural discrepancies.
The order highlights the importance of timely and clear handling of RTI applications by public authorities, since delays and unclear transfers can leave citizens uncertain about where their requests stand.
