CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001072/8033
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001072
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Praveen Kr. Dubey
S/o Mr. A.N. Dubey
C/o Narender Singh,
H-2/33, IInd Floor,
Sector 16, Rohini,
New Delhi- 110089.
Respondent : Ms. Swatantar Bala
Public Information Officer & Addl. Director-Ist,
Education Department. (H.Q.),
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Nigam Bhawan, Kashmiri Gate,
Delhi-110006.
RTI application filed on : 05/10/2009 PIO replied : 20/10/2009 First appeal filed on : 19/11/2009 First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 12/01/2010 Second Appeal received on : 27/04/2010
The Appellant wanted information in regard to his rejoining date in the Department.
S.No Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. Fate of the two applications dated Since the appellant was only a daily wager and not
27.03.01 and 10.09.01. an employee of the Education Deptt, the rejoining
cannot be permitted until the final verdict on the
case pending against him is delivered.
2. Reason for not taking any decision -do-
on the above-said two applications
even after expiry of a period of
eight years.
3. Time further required to allow No time limit can be specified, the same maybe
rejoining in department. inferred from the reply to query 1 and 2.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information received from the PIO.
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order:
Complete reply had been furnished to appellant.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Ms. Swatantar Bala, Public Information Officer & Addl. Director-Ist;
The Respondent states that the complete information ahs been provided to the appellant.
From a perusal of the papers and the FAA’s order this appears to be correct. The Appellant has a
grievance that he claims he had worked continuously for two and half years in MCD as daily
wager and his services should have been regularized. This is not the matter that can be dealt with
under Right to Information.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
The information appears to have been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
07 June 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SC)