In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SM/A/2011/000125AD
Date of Hearing : July 15, 2011
Date of Decision : July 15, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Phool Chand,
H.No. B48, Sector 15,
Noida 201 301
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT)
North Block,
New Delhi
Represented by: Shri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, Under Secretary
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SM/A/2011/000125AD
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication dated 02.09.2010 with the PIO, DoPT, New Delhi, seeking
certain information–identified in 5 items– with regard to the implementation of the DoPT orders on
the issue of contract employees and maintenance of roster. This application was replied to by two
different PIOs (viz., Shri S.K. Srivastava, U.S. and Shri A. Balaram, U.S.) through their
communications dated 23.09.2010 and 29.9.2010 respectively. The Applicant, being aggrieved with
the replies of the PIOs, filed his 1stappeal with the Appellate Authority on 10.10.2010 requesting him
to grant a personal hearing to the Appellant so that he could understand the issue properly. The
Appellant, however, apparently did not receive any reply from the AA and thus filed the present
appeal before the Commission requesting the Commission to consider his request for information.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents informed the Commission that the AA had decided the
Appellant’s 1stappeal vide his order dated 27.12.2010 reiterating the reply of the PIO. The Appellant,
on his part, complained that the information given by the PIOs is not convincing as it is not based
upon facts. Showing copies of certain orders from his records, the Appellant alleged that the PIOs
have given him wrong information as they have denied the issuance of these very orders by their
Departments. The PIO, Shri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, present during the hearing, however, on
examination of these letters, pointed out that they are “temporary ones” and cannot be said to be
exactly related to the situations which the Appellant has set in his RTIapplication. The Appellant,
however, still stuck to his belief that the letters/orders produced by him do relate to the situation
mentioned in his RTIapplication.
3. In the circumstances above, it is considered appropriate to remit this matter back to the AA for him to
hear the Appellant as well as the PIO and examine the veracity of their averments with respect to the
above mentioned orders/letters produced by the Appellant and then pass a speaking order in the
matter. These letters/orders are related to queries at item nos. 1 to 3 of the Appellant’s RTI
application.
4. The matter is accordingly remitted back to the AA for a decision, after hearing both the Appellant and
the PIO, in the light of the observations made above. Time 4 weeks from the date of the receipt
of this order.
5. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Phool Chand,
H.No. B48, Sector 15,
Noida 201 301
2. The Appellate Authority
Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT)
North Block,
New Delhi
3. The Public Information Officer
Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT)
North Block,
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Appellant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1)
copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of
the Commission’s decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the
complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Appellant may indicate, what information has not been provided.