CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2009/00028/2546
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/00028
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Krishan Lal,
E-16, Mukherjee Park, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018.
Respondent : Deputy. Registrar Cum & PIO,
University of Delhi
Main Campus, Delhi-110007
RTI application filed on : 10/09/2008
PIO replied : 07/10/2008
First Appeal filed on : 24/10/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 12/11/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 09/01/2009
The Appellant had asked in his RTI application for terms of guidelines
contain in Para 3 (a), (b), (c), and (d), about the UGC letter dated 27/12/1985 in
which UGC has agreed to the removable of disparities in pay of non-teaching,
scientific, technical and library staff by giving one upward movement. That,
1. No promotion has been given in the last 8 years of regular satisfactory
service;
2. Where persons have been stagnation and their service has been satisfactory;
3. Where marginal adjustments have been made but disparities yet exist to a
considerable extent. Please provide information of these points.
PIO’s Reply:
“The applicant has not sought any specific information as defined under
Section 2(f) of the Act. The applicant wants to have interpretation of rules regarding
pay fixation etc. which is beyond the preview of the Act. The applicant may
however, inspect his personal file/service book to have information regarding pay
fixation”.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
“The appellant wanted to have the name of official who was responsible for
the alleged victimization to the appellant in the matter of pay fixation/placement in
higher scale etc. No such information is available with the University which can be
provided to the appellant.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Krishan Lal
Respondent : Mr. Jay Chanda PIO
The respondent has provided all the information available on records and also
offered inspection of files. The appellant now wants the names of the people who
have initialed the notesheet of 3/3/97. The PIO does not know since the names are
not written. However the PIO will try and take the help of other officers and identify
as many persons as possible out of the total four signatures of dealing assistant,
section officer, deputy registrar and Registrar.
Decision:
The appeal is dispsosed.
The PIO will provide the names of the four people listed above.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
31st March 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)