Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Ram Dinesh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 July, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr. Ram Dinesh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 July, 2011
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                         Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001528/13647
                                                                Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001528
Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Ram Dinesh,
Jr. Executive
DFC, Rohini office
4th Floor, Ambedkar Bhawan,
Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi

Respondent : Mr. A. M. Goyal
Public Information Officer & General Manager (CA)
Delhi Finance Corporation
Pankha Road, Janakpuri
New Delhi

RTI application filed on : 10/02/2011
PIO replied : 01/03/2011
First appeal filed on : 21/03/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 30/03/2011
Complaint received on : 08/06/2011

Sl. Information sought by the appellant Reply of the PIO

1. How many helping Senior clerk and Junior clerk was The question is not clear.

there in 2000 and how many are there in 2011?

2. How many employees are approved on permanent No body.

basis who are working on probationary period ?

3. From June 1999 to 2010 how many meeting are held of From June 1999 to 2010 total 31
senior and junior clerk appointment committee? meeting are held in which various issues
of promotion are discussed.

4. According D.F.C. of R.R. what is the work of junior There is different- different work that
officer ? are mentioned in RTID FC manual.

5.    How many people are promoted on vacant post of          The question is not clear according to
      senior clerk from year 2006?                            post.
6.    How many people are promoted on the post of Junior      The required information is not clear.
      clerk and why?

7. The recipient accepts the vacation application and no Generally the information is past on
such message is given to the corporation. And notice board of all department by not
corporation conduct examination without nay notice. communicated personally
Why ?

8. What was the required qualification for the person The copr of RRS is attached. The
who are promoted in the corporation on the post of second part of the question is not clear.
computer operator in year 2006? And what all
qualification and experience was accepted ?

9. Who many officers are promoted in corporation before The question is not clear because the
time or without D.P.C.? name of senior department and
designation is not mentioned.

10. Who many employees are send on deputation from Only 1 employee.

2005 till date ?

11. I was provided the work of operator but neither Grade Grade A is provided the on the basis of
A nor any additional incentive was provided to me why up gradation only. The question is not
and not given opportunity to go for deputation. Why ? clear.

12. How many employees were there in corporation in year The question is not clear.

2000 and how many are there in 2010?

13. How many grade pay or promotion are provided to me Only 1 promotion is made till date.

from June 1999 till today, on what basis I was made Grade A is according to 6 pay
permanent and what is my fault in it ? commission 1/01/2006.

Ground of the First Appeal:

Not having received satisfactory and information on proper basis ,appeal is filed.

Order of the FAA:

The PIO is directed to provide proper information of certain question again.

Ground of the Second Appeal:

The appropriate and satisfactory information was not provided to the appellant despite the order of
FAA and hence second appeal is filed.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Ram Dinesh;

Respondent: Mr. A. M. Goyal, Public Information Officer & General Manager (CA);

The PIO has given most of the information but is now directed to give the following additional
information to the Appellant;

    1-     Query-4: The duties of the LDCs.
    2-     Query-5: Specific information will be provided.
    3-     Query-6: Information for the period April 2000 to March 2010 will be provided.
    4-     Query-9: Information for the period April 2000 to March 2010.
    5-     Query-11: Reasons on record for rejecting the Appellant's request for deputation.

Decision:
The appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the information on the five points as mentioned
above to the Appellant before 18 August 2011.
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
25 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RU)