Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2010/000166
Dated July 23, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri Bhupendra Singh Sondhi
Name of the Public Authority : Prasar Bharati, New Delhi
Background
1. The RTI application was filed by the Applicant on 12.8.09 with the PIO, DG, Door Darshan, New Delhi
seeking information on why despite his name having been included in the eligible casual artists list to
be regularized, prepared in 2003, he was not regularized whereas those in the eligibility list after him
were. The PIO replied on 18.9.09 stating that the Directorate is not aware about point no.1 and with
regard to point 2, he requested the Applicant to pay Rs.510/ for photocopying charges for 255 pages
of information including copies of file notings . Regarding point 3, PIO, DDK Delhi was requested to
provide information. Meanwhile, the Applicant had filed his first appeal on 22.9.09 stating that he
had not received any reply. On not receiving any further reply from AA, the Appellant filed a
complaint with the Commission on 22.12.09 seeking the reasons why he was not regularized
although his name was present at 18th position in the eligibility list.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for July 2,
2010.
3. Shri Sanjiv Verma, PIO and Shri S.K. Oberoi and Sh. Mohan Gaur represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that during the process of regularisation of casual artists as per the said
eligibility list , it was noted that there was some overwriting on one of the certificates produced by the
Complainant. It was decided to verify the certificate from the Abinay Theatre Society, who on 31.7.03
verified that the corrected date mentioned in the certificate is correct and that it is 31.12.82. On
receipt of the required verification of the date (that it is indeed correct) the the DD (Admn) had
written to the DG (DD) on 22.9.03 informing him that the Appellant’s case had been examined and it
was found that the certificate issued by the Abinay Theatre Society is indeed correct. The DG was
requested to take up the case of the Appellant and reexamine it as far as his eligibility is concerned
on the basis of the records available with him. The DD (Admn) requested the DG to convey this to
the DD Kendra in the light of the observations made by the DD Kendra for the regularization of the
Complainant in the cadre of Floor Assistant. The Respondent further added that the letter dated
22.9.03 to the DG: Doordarshan was followed by another letter dated 30.9.03 informing him that the
Complainant has worked as casual floor assistant in their firm (Abhinay Theatre Society) w.e.f.
December 1979 till July 1986 and that the Abinay Theatre Society is now closed and has not been
existence since July 1995. He requested the DG once again to look to the matter and to take a
decision with regard the Complainant’s regularization in service. However, no response till date has
been received from DG: Doordarshan , Prasar Bharati.
6. The Commission on perusal of the submissions on record and after hearing the Respondent and
while noting that available information has already been provided to the Complainant , is troubled by
the fact that despite verification of the said certificate by the Abhinay Theatre Society, and for no
fault of his the Complainant has been made to suffer by the inaction on the part of the DG:
Doordarshan with regard to regularisation of the Complainant’s service since 31.7. 2003, the date
on which the certificate had been verified by the Abhinay Theatre Society. The DG: Doordarshan is
therefore held responsible by the Commission for the mental harassment which the Complainant
had undergone all these years and for the financial loss which the Complainant has allegedly
incurred because of DG: Doordarshan not having responded to the letters from Dy. Director(Admin)
requesting for a decision on the matter of regularization of service of the Complainant.
7. In the light of the above observations and also in the light of the fact that at present a decision in
respect of regularization of casual artists is being taken by the Board, it is recommended strongly
that the Complainant’s case be considered on a priority basis, based on the decision of the Board,
and that the retirement benefits, etc. are provided to the Complainant from the year 2003. The DG:
Doordarshan may also wish to consider the case of the Complainant irrespective of the decision
taken by the Board, based on documents provided by him as is it is quite evident that the
Complainant had not been regularized in 2003 due to a serious lapse on the part of DG:
Doordarshan.
8. The complaint is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Bhupendra Singh Sondhi
H/No.X/1864, Street No.12
Rajgarh Ex. No.2
Delhi 110031
2. The PIO
Prasar Bharati
DG. Doordarshan
Doorshan Bhawan
Ph.I, Copernicus Marg
New Delhi
3. Officer Incharge, NIC
4. Press E Group, CIC