Mr.M Gunasekharan vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 May, 2011

                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                         Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
                           Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                                   Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                           Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000579/12340
                                                                   Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000579

Appellant                                   :      Mr. M Gunasekharan
                                                   Training Officer, ATI-EPI 104,
                                                   Kranti Enclave, 3-3-25-26
                                                   Anand Anacar,
                                                   Ramanthapur Hyderabad - 500013

Respondent                                  :      Mr. Dilip S. Kumbhare
                                                   PIO & Section Officer
                                                   Government of NCT of Delhi
                                                   Directorate General of Employment & Training,
                                                   Sharm Shakti Bhawan,
                                                   New Delhi -110001

RTI application filed on                    :      15/11/2010
PIO replied                                 :      29/11/2010
First Appeal filed on                       :      07/12/2010
Second Appeal filed on                      :      17/02/2011
Hearing Notice Issued on                    :      06/04/2011
Date of Hearing                             :      11/05/2011

Information Sought:-
1) When did your office receive the II- ACP proposal of M.Gunasekharan, Training, Officer ATI-EPI,
Hyderabad and what action was taken?
2) When did your office receive the first reminder/proposal send by the Director, ATI-EPI regarding II-
ACP of M.Gunasekharan and What action was taken?
3) When did your office receive the second reminder/proposal send by the Director, ATI-EPI regarding
the II-ACP of M. Gunasekharan and What action was taken?
4) When did your office receive third reminder/proposal send by the Director, ATI-EPI regarding the II-
ACP of M. Gunasekharan and What action was taken?
5) When did your office receive the fourth reminder/proposal send by the Director, ATI-EPI regarding II-
ACP of M. Gunasekharan What action was taken?
6) When did your office receive the fifth reminder/proposal send by the Director, ATI-EPI regarding the
II- ACP of M. Gunasekharan and What action was taken?
7) How much is the rate of interest will you pay on the arrears amount if due?
8) Reason for the four years of delay to award II-ACP to M. Gunasekharan.

Reply from the PIO:-
The appellant was provided with the following replies:-
1. Proposals dated 29.4.2010 & 23.7.2010 received only. Acton is being taken.
2. Nil
3. Nil
4. Nil
5. Nil
6. Nil
7. Nil
 8. Administrative Reasons.

Grounds of First appeal:
No satisfactory information received.

FAA's Order:-
Please refer to Decision No.CIC/SG/C/2011/000002/10760, dated 3.1.2011 regarding seeking information
Under RTI ACT 2005, by you. I am to say that the information sought by you is enclosed herewith. ACP
cases related to staff of institutes under DGET are dealt in DGE&T Hqrs, New Delhi. Whenever proposals
from all the Institutes are received, the meeting for granting of ACP is held. Delay is due to non receipt of
proposals from some Institutes. The ACP cases are considered in Central Govt. Departments only twice in
a year i.e. January and July and hence the delay occasioned.

Ground of Second Appeal:-
The information given by the FAA is in general and it is not specific to the particulars sought by me.
The information given by the FAA is only the letters/reminders send by the Director, ATI-EPI,
Hyderabad. But the information is sought for particularly what action have b en taken in the head quarters.
They supplied the information only for the point no. 8 of my application and other points were
unattended.
Hence, I request the Hon'ble commission to intervene in this matter and help me to get the specific
information for the remaining seven points serially I to 7.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant: Absent;

Respondent: Mr. Dilip S. Kumbhare, PIO & Section Officer;
The respondent states that the information as per available had been sent to appellant. The appellant had
grievance about not getting his ACP. Incidentally an order for his ACP has been issued on 5.4.2011.

Decision:

The Appeal is disposed.

The information available as per records has been provided to appellant.
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
11 May 2011.

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)