RTI and the CAT in central-government service matters — which route, when

A serving or retired central-government employee with a service grievance usually needs two things: the records that show what happened, and a forum that can change the outcome. These are different legal routes:

• The RTI Act, 2005 gets you copies of existing records held by your department — quickly and cheaply (₹10 application fee). It cannot quash an order, direct a promotion, or make anyone explain a decision.
• The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (made under Article 323A of the Constitution) gives the CAT jurisdiction over recruitment and service matters of central civil servants. The CAT can set aside orders, direct review DPCs, and grant consequential relief. It is the remedy for the grievance itself.

Most well-run service cases use RTI first (or alongside) to arm the Original Application (OA) with the department's own documents.

Your own service records are “information” under Section 2(f), and Section 2(j)(ii) entitles you to certified copies — the form courts and tribunals want. Typical asks:

• your service book, as it stands on date;
• your APARs/ACRs for named years, including gradings, remarks and the integrity column;
• the seniority list of your grade or cadre as on a given date;
• minutes of the DPC to the extent they concern you (assessments of other officers can be severed under Section 10 — ask for the portions relating to you and the DPC's benchmark/procedure);
• copies of orders, representations and their disposal, and the notings on your file — Section 2(f) expressly covers “opinions” and “advices”, so file notings are information, though exemptions still apply clause by clause.

Section 8(1)(j) works for you, not against you. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212, decided 3 October 2012, the Supreme Court held that a public servant's service record is personal information that a third party cannot get without showing a larger public interest. When the applicant is the officer himself, there is no third-party privacy to invade — a bare “8(1)(j) — personal information” refusal of your own record does not survive a first appeal. The Central Information Commission applies the same line: in Santosh Kumar v. Eastern Railway, File No. CIC/ERAIL/A/2024/614390 (September 2025), it refused other candidates' APAR grades while noting the appellant's own grades were accessible to him (read the decision).

For APARs there is a second, independent basis. The Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, held that every ACR entry must be communicated to the officer, and a three-judge bench affirmed this in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 9 SCC 566. DoPT converted the rule into standing procedure by OM No. 21011/1/2005-Estt.(A) (Pt-II) dated 14 May 2009: from reporting year 2008-09 onwards the full APAR — overall grade and integrity column included — must be disclosed to the officer, who gets 15 days to represent, with the competent authority deciding within 30 days. See the full treatment at Your own APAR and service book under RTI.

• It cannot quash a supersession, transfer or penalty, and cannot direct a review DPC — only the CAT (or a court) can.
• It cannot compel the department to answer “why”. RTI entitles you to copies of existing records, not to fresh explanations or opinions — see Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer (SC 2010) in this corpus.
• It does not stop the limitation clock for the Tribunal. Filing an RTI is not a “departmental remedy” for your grievance.

Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 gives the CAT jurisdiction over recruitment and service matters of members of the All-India Services, civil servants of the Union, civilians in defence-connected posts, and notified organisations (Section 14 text). Key practical points:

• You file an Original Application (OA) before the Bench with territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal ordinarily expects you to have exhausted the departmental remedy (your representation/appeal under the applicable rules) first.
• Limitation is one year under Section 21 — broadly, one year from the final order on your grievance, or one year from the expiry of six months if your representation went unanswered — with power to condone delay for sufficient cause (Section 21 text).
• The CAT's decision is not the end of the road: in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (Supreme Court, seven judges, 18 March 1997) the Court held that High Court review of tribunal decisions under Articles 226/227 is part of the Constitution's basic structure (read the judgment).
• State-government employees go to their State Administrative Tribunal where one exists, or the High Court — not the CAT. The RTI side is identical either way.

1. Start the RTI immediately — to your ministry's or cadre-controlling authority's CPIO, asking for the records listed above. The reply is due in 30 days under Section 7(1).
2. Compute your CAT limitation date from the order you are aggrieved by (or the unanswered representation). If the one-year window is closing, file the OA without waiting for the RTI reply — documents can be brought on record later.
3. Use the RTI output in the OA: the uncommunicated APAR entry, the DPC benchmark, the seniority position, the noting that contradicts the order.
4. If the PIO stonewalls, run the reply through the PIO Reply Checker and file a first appeal within 30 days under Section 19(1) with the First Appeal Builder; track deadlines with the Timeline Tracker.

Address it to the CPIO of the record-holding office, with the ₹10 fee (see state-wise RTI fees):

Under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, I request the following
information relating to me (I am the subject of these records):

1. Certified copy of my service book as it stands on date.
2. Certified copies of my APARs/ACRs for reporting years
   [YYYY-YY] to [YYYY-YY], including gradings, remarks and the
   integrity column, as per Section 2(j)(ii).
3. Certified copy of the seniority list of [grade/cadre] as on
   [date], indicating my position.
4. Copy of the minutes of the DPC held on [date] for promotion
   to [post], to the extent they relate to me, along with the
   benchmark adopted; portions relating to other officers may
   be severed under Section 10.
5. Copies of my representation dated [date] and all notings and
   orders recording its consideration and disposal.

A reply is due within 30 days under Section 7(1). Since these are
my own records, Section 8(1)(j) does not apply against me. If any
part is withheld, please cite the exact provision and inform me of
my right to first appeal under Section 19(1).

You can generate a clean version with the AI RTI Drafter.

Not sustainably. That clause protects the person the information is about — you — from third parties (Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, (2013) 1 SCC 212). When you are the applicant, there is no one else's privacy to invade. For APARs, the DoPT OM of 14 May 2009 makes disclosure to you the default anyway.

The portions concerning you — your assessment, the benchmark, the procedure followed — yes, with other officers' assessments severed under Section 10. Other candidates' gradings are their personal information under Section 8(1)(j), as the CIC held in Santosh Kumar v. Eastern Railway (2025).

No. RTI only produces records. To quash the order or get a review DPC, file an OA before the CAT under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — ordinarily after your departmental representation is decided or has gone unanswered.

One year, under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act — from the final order, or from the expiry of six months if your representation drew no reply. The Tribunal can condone delay for sufficient cause, but do not bank on it: if the window is closing, file the OA and bring the RTI output on record later.

The RTI part is identical — your own service records are yours to ask for, from the state PIO under the state's fee rules. The forum changes: service grievances go to your State Administrative Tribunal where one exists, or to the High Court, not the CAT.

• Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, decided 12 May 2008 — indiankanoon.org/doc/801705
• Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 9 SCC 566, decided 23 April 2013 — indiankanoon.org/doc/9665019
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212, decided 3 October 2012 — indiankanoon.org/doc/160205361
• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, decided 18 March 1997 — indiankanoon.org/doc/1152518
• Santosh Kumar v. Eastern Railway, CIC/ERAIL/A/2024/614390, September 2025 — indiankanoon.org/doc/163361586
• DoPT OM No. 21011/1/2005-Estt.(A) (Pt-II) dated 14.05.2009 — full text PDF
• The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — Section 14 (text) and Section 21 (text)
• The Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 2(f), 2(j), 6(1), 7(1), 8(1)(j), 10, 19

Closest rulings on the same point of law — useful starting points if you are researching own-record access and service-matter RTI.

• Own APAR and service-book access (SC 2022 page, rebuilt on verified law)
• Public servant's own service record — SC (SC 2015)
• IB and §24 scope — SC (SC 2018)
• Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer (SC 2010)
• AFT on pension-file RTI — 2023 (AFT 2023)

• All Central Administrative Tribunal rulings in the corpus
• All RTI cases turning on §8
• All RTI cases turning on §19
• Full case-law search
• Case-Law Database — overview
• PIO RTI Reply Guide
• The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated

Editorial summary · reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak · last reviewed 10 July 2026.

1. Step 1: What is CAT and its role in service matters? (a) CAT: Central Administrative Tribunal, (b) established: Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, © purpose: adjudicate service matters of central government employees, (d) jurisdiction: (i) All India Services officers, (ii) central government employees, (iii) employees of central PSUs, (iv) employees of autonomous bodies under central government, (e) portal: cat.gov.in, (f) relationship with RTI: (i) CAT adjudicates service-related disputes, (ii) RTI Act provides access to service records, (iii) RTI denial in service matters can be challenged via CAT.
2. Step 2: Comparison table — CAT vs RTI vs Civil Court in service matters. (a) CAT: (i) forum: Central Administrative Tribunal, (ii) jurisdiction: central govt employees, (iii) timeline: 6-12 months, (iv) cost: Rs 50-500 fee, (v) best for: promotion, seniority, dismissal, disciplinary, (b) RTI: (i) forum: PIO of department, (ii) jurisdiction: all public authorities, (iii) timeline: 30+30 days, (iv) cost: Rs 10, (v) best for: service records, ACR, promotion policy, © Civil Court: (i) forum: City Civil Court, (ii) jurisdiction: state govt employees, (iii) timeline: 1-5 years, (iv) cost: court fee varies, (v) best for: state govt service matters, (d) State Tribunal: (i) forum: State Administrative Tribunal (where established), (ii) jurisdiction: state govt employees, (iii) timeline: 6-12 months, (iv) cost: Rs 50-500, (v) best for: state service matters.
3. Step 3: How to file RTI for service records. (a) RTI Act Section 4(1)(b) mandates proactive disclosure of service rules, recruitment, promotion criteria, (b) RTI application can ask: (i) “Provide my Annual Confidential Report (ACR)/APAR for [years] including: ratings, remarks, grading, reviewing officer comments”, (ii) “Provide the promotion policy and seniority list for [cadre/department] for [year] including: criteria, seniority position, vacancies, selection committee minutes”, (iii) “Provide the disciplinary proceedings details in Case [number] including: charges, inquiry officer report, findings, penalty imposed”, © personal information of third parties may be exempt under Section 8(1)(j).
4. Step 4: How to file CAT application. (a) Step 1: Draft OA (Original Application) — (i) facts, (ii) grounds, (iii) relief sought, (b) Step 2: Pay court fee — Rs 50 (Group D) to Rs 500 (Group A), © Step 3: File at jurisdictional CAT bench, (d) Step 4: CAT issues notice to department, (e) Step 5: Reply filed by department — often RTI-obtained documents are used as evidence, (f) Step 6: Hearing and final order, (g) Step 7: Appeal to High Court under Article 226/227.
5. Step 6: Practical tips. (a) file RTI first to gather service records and evidence, (b) use RTI-obtained documents in CAT application, © file CAT application within 1 year of cause of action, (d) cite relevant CAT/SC judgments, (e) Example: An employee denied promotion filed RTI for ACR and promotion criteria; ACR revealed adverse remark without intimation; filed CAT; CAT ordered promotion with back wages citing non-compliance with natural justice.

See CAT RTI Service Matters and Asset Declaration RTI and How to File RTI and RTI First Appeal.