CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000857/12709
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000857
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Chandra Tanwar
House No. 31, Shyam Nagar,
Okhla Estate, Phase-III
New Delhi 110020
Respondent : Public Information Officer,
Asst. Commissioner (D.E.M.S.),
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Civic Centre, 11th Floor,
Minto Road, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 24/1/2011
PIO replied on : 03/02/2011 transferred to DEMS
First Appeal filed on : 24/2/2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 15/3/2011
Second Appeal received on : 28/3/2011
Q.No Query
1. On what basis was Mr. Dalip Kumar, promoted as Sanitation Superintendent in 1997 vide
O.O.NO. 1903/01/11-AC/ SD97 dated 25.10.1997 and the documents for the same?
2. Supply photocopy of the correspondence/ noting of the officials vide which Mr. Dalip Kumar
was promoted
3. The names of the officials and their designations who dealt with the case for Mr. Kumar's
promotion to Sanitation Superintendent before the Appellant's due promotion.
4. The document on the basis of which the Appellant was made to retire while working as
Sanitation Superintendent.
5. The document on the basis of which the Appellant has not been paid leave encashment till
date.
6. The name and designation of officers who dealt with the Appellant's case with regard to the
payment of leave encashment
7. The photocopy of the correspondence of the file due to which payment of the Appellant's
leave encashment has been withheld by the department
PIO`s Response:
RTI transferred to DEMS (HQ).
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply received to RTI application.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Since it appeared that the Appellant claimed to have not received the information sent by the PIO, the
PIO was directed to send another copy of the information with 15 days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
There was non- compliance with the order of the FAA directing the information to be supplied.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Ramesh Chandra Tanwar;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant admits that he has received the information on 21/03/2011 from the PIO. The
Commission has perused the information and it appears that information available on records has been
provided to him. The appellant has a grievance since the information provided shows that the
Appellant’s name was not putup for promotion when Mr. Dilip Kumar’s name was recommended for
promotion in 1997. He states that this was not correct. For this he will have to agitate at an appropriate
forum.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available as 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
06 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (Rh)