Mrs. Sarah John vs Indian Council Of Social Science … on 1 January, 2010

                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                          Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
                            Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                                    Tel: +91-11-26161796
                                                                      Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002928/6243
                                                                            Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002928

Appellant                                        :       Mrs. Sarah John,
                                                         16A Pocket-1,
                                                         Mayur Vihar Phase-1
                                                         Delhi-110091

Respondent                                       :       Public Information Officer
                                                         Indian Council of Social Science Research (MHRD)
                                                         Post Box No.-10528,
                                                         Aruna Asaf Ali Marg,
                                                         New Delhi-110067

RTI application filed on                         :       07/07/2009
PIO replied                                      :       03/08/2009
First Appeal filed on                            :       27/08/2009
First Appellate Authority order                  :       09/10/2009
Second Appeal Received on                        :       17/11/2009

Information sought:
Appellant sought information regarding financial up gradations granted by ICSSR to select few officers while
ignoring the claim of the Appellant.
Details:
    (i)     A copy of the order GFR 141 and GFR 1.4.5 (b) quoted in the ICSSR office order no. 1.5/2008-09
            dated 19/05/2009, which provide for three ACP promotions.
    (ii)    How was up-gradation justified in the light of DOP&T O.M No. 35034/1/97-Estt. (D) dated
            09/08/1999, which did not provide for more than two financial up-gradations in the entire service.
    (iii)   A copy of the order, which permits ad-hoc promotion in the case of 'Deputy Directors' and
            disallows the same in the case of 'Directors'

PIO's Reply:
Information furnished by the PIO:
    A- Group-C&D employees who were directly recruited in the group will b eligible for financial
        upgradation after 12-24 years of service if they have not got any promotion.
    B- For Group-A officers, it has been decided to reduce the period of 12 years to 8 years for directly
        recruited officers.
In view of the above facts, order dated 19/05/2009 was issued whereby ten officers were granted benefits
mentioned above.
Dr. K.D. Gaur has been allowed financial benefit w.e.f 07/09/2009. Appellant is not eligible for any benefit with
reference to his junior or senior under ACP Scheme.
Based on Appellant's representation, the financial upgradation date in respect of Shir N.K. Gupta, Shri Rajeev
khera, Dr. Ranjit Sinha has been modified to 01/07/2005 as per the office letter dated 22/07/2009(copy
enclosed).
The details of nine officers indicated in Appellant's letter were provided by the PIO in format of Sl.No., Name,
Date, Appointment, Mode of Appointment.

As far as post of Director is concerned, post of Director is required to be filled up by direct recruitment as per
notified rules. The post has been notified in newspapers. Appellant had also applied for the post and Appellant
will be considered as per laid down rules of this matter.
 The post of Director (Research) cannot be filled on adhoc basis by even if by relaxation standards, .i.e. five
years. And Appellant is not eligible for promotion to the post of Director that Shri M.A. Jawaid was appointed
on adhoc basis as Deputy Director against a vacant post,. Which was filled on direct recruitment and he was
selected. Therefore, there is no similarity to consider Appellant case on the same lines as benefit was given to
Shri Jawaid.

Grounds for First Appeal:
After reply of PIO, Appellant sought specific and point-wise information on following:
    1.      A copy of the govt. instruction under which ICSR ordered the upgradation after eight years of
            Group A service to a set of officers who had already received two to three or more regular
            promotions in their career.
    2.      Reason for not granting the 3rd financial upgradation in spite of having put in more than twenty
            three years service in the Group 'A' post w.e.f. 02/01/1986.
    3.      Reasons for not giving to all Group 'A' officers, instead of giving it to a select few.
    4.      Justification for terming officers like S/Shri R. R. Prasad, Ranjit Sinha, S.N.M Kopparty, K.N.
            Jehangir, K.D. Gaur etc as 'directly recruited Group 'A' officers'

Order of the First Appellate Authority:
FAA mentioned that Appellant requested for para-wise reply to the points raised in her appeal. The PIO
provided detailed reply to the questions raised by the Appellant except giving a copy of the order GFR-141 and
GFR-1.4.5(b), which was not available that time. The same had been traced and made available to the FAA.
It was clarified to Appellant that granting financial up-gradation was beyond the jurisdiction of the Appellate
Authority.

Grounds for Second Appeal:
False and misleading replies.
Appellant sought following additional information in his Second Appeal:
    (i)     Reason for ignoring the claim of the Appellant even two of her juniors Shri K. D. Gaur and Shri S.
            V. Khandewale were given benefit.
    (ii)    Will the authorities of ICSSR rectify the mistake and grant Appellant financial upgraditon form the
            date her juniors had been granted the benefit

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant: Mrs. Sarah John;

Respondent: Absent;

The information has been provided to the appellant. The Appellant has a grievance that injustice ahs
been done to her in the matter of grant of ACP upgradation. For this the appellant would have to approach some
other forum.

Decision:

The appeal is disposed.

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
01 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj