CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000470/7466
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000470
Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Gupta,
704, G. T. Road, Shahdara,
Delhi-110003
Respondent : 1) Mr. Ravinder Kumar
Public Information Officer & DLO
O/o the Assistant Commissioner(Estt.)-I
Central Establishment Department,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Town Hall, Delhi-110006
2) Mr. Tirath Ram
Public Information Officer &
Administrative Officer
O/o the Administrative Officer(Health)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Town Hall, Delhi-110006
RTI application filed on : 29/07/2009
PIO replied : 01/09/2009
First Appeal filed on : 23/09/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal Received on : 18/02/2010
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 17/03/2010
Hearing Held on : 15/04/2010
Information sought:
Appellant sought following information:
1. Date of first appointment of D. H.A & by whose order. Whether this appointment was
made by any committee or U.P.S.C? Provide Source of appointment, Basis of
appointment, and its standards. Till date how many were D.H. A on said post & for how
long. Provide details with name.
2. Provide details of salary, facilities given to D.H.A by MCD & under which rule. Provide
details of minimum qualification & age limit required for the D.H.A post.
3. Qualification of D.H. A. who was appointed at first? Whether it was true that a criminal
matter was on him & he was on bell till date.
4. Whether he was only candidate at the time of appointment of D.H.A.?
5. Whether any conspiracy was made for creating a post for D.H.A?
Page 1 of 3
PIO's Reply:
Reply given to Respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 01/09/2009.
1. This is related to Central Establishment Deptt because appointment of DHA was not done
by this Department.
This is related to Health Department.
2, 3,4,5 : As above.
Reply furnished by Respondent no1 subsequently vide letter dated 27/11/2009:
1. Photocopy of order is enclosed.(in reply of the first part of the question).
Second part is related to A.D.C(Health).
2. This question is related to A.D.C(Health).
RR for this post is not available.
3. There is no such data available in this department.
4. There is no such information available in this department.
5. As above in reply of Q. No. 4.
Respondent no.2 replied to the Appellant vide letter dated 10/12/2009:
Point no.1: As per information received from the office of DHA is as under:
1. Office Order of First DHA dated 27/01/2004.
2. Office order of present DHA dated 21/06/2005
3. Office order of creation of duties of DHA dated 21/01/2004 and DHA's till date
are:
1. Dr. Sudhakar Patnaik- 27/01/2004 to 31/10/2004
2. Dr. Banavalikar 09/11/2004 to 21/06/2005
3. Dr. Madhu Jain 22/06/2005 to till date.
1. a .Copy of office order dated 21/01/2004 attached.
b. Same as above.
c. Does not pertain to this office.
d. Same as 1(a).
e. As mentioned above.
Point no.2: Copy of pay bill is attached.
Point no. 3 to 5: Pertains to CED
Grounds for First Appeal:
Mentioning reply dated 27/08/2009, Appellant mentioned that desired information not provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Wrong information provided.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Gupta;
Respondent (1): Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Public Information Officer & DLO (CED);
Respondent (2): Mr. Tirath Ram, Public Information Officer & Administrative Officer (Health);
The PIO has given information that there is no record of any police case against the first
DHA Dr. Sudhakar Patnaik. The appellant states that a criminal case no.1015/93 in the matter of
Mr. Satya Narayan Vs Dr. Sudhakar Patnaik and others was pending in the Delhi Court of ADJ
Page 2 of 3
Mr. Raj Kapoor. The PIO states that information of this nature is not available on the service
files in the Central Establishment Department. The PIO will however find out if this information
is available with the vigilance department and inform the Appellant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 30 April 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
15 April 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj
Page 3 of 3