CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001329/13325
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001329
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Parvinder Kumar
H.No 12A, Maidan Gari,
Near Peer Baba
New Delhi-110068
Respondent : Mr. V. P. Singh
PIO & Vice Principal
Govt. Boys Secondary School-III,
Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030
RTI application filed on : 14/02/2011
PIO replied on : 15/03/2011
First Appeal filed on : 07/04/2011
First Appellate Authority order on : 29/04/2011
Second Appeal received on : 19/05/2011
Sl. Query Reply of PIO
1. The Notice given to the Appellant dated 11/02/11 regarding not to Notice given to the Appellant
report at school from 12/02/11 because there is no sufficient budget to is still the same and
pay wages. information regarding the
Whether the Respondent has taken permission from the CEP Cell, notice has already been sent
ICSIL and Budget Branch Planning before giving notice to the to the concerned authority
Appellant. but still pending.
2. Whether such kind of notice has been given to the other Jr. Comp Every individual were given
Faculty and IT Asst. If not then, Please provide information from where notice but they agreed to do
their budget would suffice. Governmental work without
payment.
3. Whether there was sufficient budget, when the Appellant has joined the No reply
school as Jr. Comp faculty. If not then ,As a D.D.O dated from
19/01/2011 to 11/02/2011,how many times letter has been written to the
Budget Branch. If not written then why.
Please furnish detail about whom Directorate of Education has
appointed for the demand of budget.
4. Whether the consent of the Appellant has been taken regarding the No reply
notice dated 11/02/11 ,About there would be delay in payment due to
budget and whether the Appellant wished to continue his job.
5. Directorate of Education pass the budget for each school at the same No reply
time. Whether there is a different provision for the respondent's school.
6. Whether the notice has been given to the Appellant for the Harassment. No reply
7. When there was no budget, why the appellant was being asked to join No reply
the school on 19/01/2011.Whether this notice is not acting as a violation
Page 1 of 3
of contract between Directorate of education and ICSIL.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information furnished by the PIO was not complete.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA directed the APIO to provide the information as required by the Appellant within 10 days free
of cost. Appeal disposed.
Reply of PIO dated 29/04/2011 received by the Appellant dated 31/04/2011 after First Appellate
Authority(FAA):
3. Whether there was sufficient budget, when the Appellant has There was no sufficient budget
joined the school as Jr. Comp faculty. If not then ,As a D.D.O during the Appellant appointment
dated from 19/01/2011 to 11/02/2011,how many times letter has but budget was under process.
been written to the Budget Branch. If not written then why. The department has appointed DDO
Please furnish detail about whom Directorate of Education has for the Budget and Budget surrender.
appointed for the demand of budget.
4. Whether the consent of the Appellant has been taken regarding The Appellant was informed after
the notice dated 11/02/11 ,About there would be delay in the effort made by the authority for
payment due to budget and whether the Appellant wished to the budget.
continue his job.
5. Directorate of Education pass the budget for each school at the Main budget of each school is
same time. Whether there is a different provision for the passed altogether but as per the
respondent's school. requirement secondary budget is also
issued sometime.
6. Whether the notice has been given to the Appellant for the No, the notice was not provided for
Harassment. the harassment.
7. When there was no budget, why the appellant was being asked Budget was insufficient during the
to join the school on 19/01/2011.Whether this notice is not Appellant appointment. But due to
acting as a violation of contract between Directorate of delay in budget, the Appellant is
education and ICSIL. being informed.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information furnished by the PIO, not satisfactory.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Parvinder Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. V. P. Singh, PIO & Vice Principal;
The PIO has given information as per records but the appellant’s queries are framed in a manner
where the PIO is expected to give answers to cross examination queries. The Commission suggests to the
Appellant to inspect the relevant records. The Appellant would like to inspect the relevant records on
20 July 2011 from 10.30AM onwards at the office of the PIO/Vice Principal.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 20 July 2011
from 10.30AM onwards at the office of the PIO. In case there are any records or file which the appellant
believes should exist, which are not shown to him, he will give this in writing to the PIO at the time of
inspection and the PIO will either give the files/records or give it in writing that such files/records do not
exist.
Page 2 of 3
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the
Appellant on 20 July 2011 from 10.30AM onwards. The PIO will give attested
photocopies of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 100 pages.
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
08 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (MS))
Page 3 of 3