CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/DS/A/2010/000527/SG/4395
Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2010/000527/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. A N Tripathi
Deputy Registrar,
Indian School of Mines University,
Dhanbad - 826004
Respondent : Mr. C. B. Prasad
Public Information Officer & DGMS (Dhanbad)
Ministry of Labour and Employment
Director General Mines Safety,
Dhanbad – 826001(Jharkhand)
RTI application filed on : 23/05/2009
PIO replied : 28/07/2009
First appeal filed on : 09/07/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 18/07/2009
Second Appeal received on : 08/09/2009
S. No Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. The name, designation and complete There is no as such denial of transfer of pro-rata
official address of the officer whopensionary benefit of Mr. A N Tripathi. The
ordered the denial of the transfer of
chronological development has been stated below:-
the Pro rata retirement benefits inA) Indian School of mines vide their letter No.
the appellant’s case in contravention
411004/94 – Estt. Dated 20/10/1994, indicated the Mr
of the Government of India Tripathi has requested for counting of his past service
guidelines dated 30/05/1995. rendered in the Directorate General of Mines safety
(copy enclosed). Accordingly a letter has been sent to
Deputy Registrar, ISM vide this directorate’s letter
No.Adm.I/PF/663/1824 dated 10/02/1997 (copy
enclosed) mentioning therein that Mr. Tripathi is
eligible for the count of his past service.
B) The Directorate’s letter No.Adm.I/PF/663/1311 &
3131 dated 21/11/2000 & 14/12/2005 also mentioned
that since Mr. Tripathi had opted for the counting of his
past service for the purpose of pensionary benefits, it
was said that he was not entitled to any retirement
benefits by the DGMS.
2. Was the above mentioned officer of Not applicable
the Ministry of Labour empowered
to overrule directives of the
Page 1 of 2
Government Of India dated
30/05/1995?
3. The name, designation and complete Ministry of Labour and Employment
official address of the Disciplinary
Authority of the above officer to
whom the Appellant can approach
for appropriate action
4. A copy of the advice of DGMs as A copy enclosed
referred to, in the letter D.O NO. A
– 38011/4/96- ISH dated 08/02/2006
issued by Mr. C A Bhaskaran, the
Director.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Appeal was dismissed.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and Dismissal of Appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. C. B. Prasad, Public Information Officer & DGMS (Dhanbad);
The appellant has sought information about action taken in 1997. The appellant claims that the
deficiency in the information is that the name and official address of the officer which was sought in
query-1 has not been given. The PIO is directed to provide this information to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the name and official address of the officer who
had stated that the appellant was not eligible for pensionary benefits from DGMS. The
PIO will provide this information to the appellant before 20 July 2010.
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
05 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)
Page 2 of 2