CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001074/8029
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001074
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Saket Dinkar,
A-50, Nav Bharat times Apartments,
Mayur Vihar-I,
New Delhi- 110091.
Respondent : Dr. Sumati Batra
Public Information Officer & Chief Medical Officer
Health Department,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
16, Rajpur Road, Civil Line Zone,
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 29/12/2009 PIO replied : 20/01/2010 First appeal filed on : 25/01/2010 First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 24/02/2010 Second Appeal received on : 26/04/2010
The Appellant wanted information regarding rejection of his application for LTC by the
concerned Department.
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Departmental policy and formalities for grant of Employee required to obtain prior permission
LTC to regular, ad hoc, contract and other for going on LTC along with station leave.
employees.
2. Channels (levels up to the top) for Sanction of LTC given by Project Director, IPP-
approval/grant/sanction of LTC employees on VIII and DHA as per permissibility of category
regular, ad hoc, contact, daily wages and others. of employee. Daily wagers and contract
Furnish details for each category. employees have not been sanctioned LTC till
date.
3. LTC, bonus, medical facilities are being provided All facilities are being provided to regular
to regular, ad hoc, contact, daily wages and others. employees, daily wagers get bonus as per
Furnish details for each category. circular.
4. Application of appellant for LTC or home loan for Yes
self and family vide letter dt. 07/12/2009/
received.
5. If the aforementioned application had been Application was forwarded to ACA/IPP-VIII by
received, whether the same was Project Director, ACA/IPP-VIII had further sent
granted/sanctioned. If yes, reasons for not the file through PD/IPP-VIII to DCA/IPP-VIII
informing the appellant of the same till 29.12.09. for advice. Sanction was not approved by
If no, reasons for such rejection. competent authority.
6. Authorities who rejected the application and Required copy may be obtained after payment
remarks of each. of requisite fee of Rs. 2 per page.
7. Route of LTC applications in the Department if All applications are routed through same
same for all then whether the applicant’s channel but due to some confusion regarding
Page 1 of 2
application was channeled through a different LTC to contract employees advice was taken
route. Furnish reasons. from DCA/F&G.
8. Whether total service record of employee is Sanction of LTC is being done as per rules
considered before sanctioning of LTC and reasons applicable in MCD.
for not considering the appellant’s record.
9. Detailed Specifications of any contract employee No other contract employee has applied/got
since 1995 who had applied for a home loan/LTC sanctioned LTC in past.
and if the same was sanctioned/rejected by the
department.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information received from the PIO.
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order:
Point 3 should be transferred to the concerned PIO within 7 days. Photocopy of the application to be
provided to the applicant within one week in respect of point no.6. No action required on point 3 and for
query 4, PIO was advised accordingly.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and biased approach of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Saket Dinkar;
Respondent : Dr. Sumati Batra, Public Information Officer & Chief Medical Officer; Mr. Gajendra
Kumar Singh, UDC (CED) Town Hall, Delhi;
The Appellant has sought information whether LTC, Bonus and Medical facilities are
available to the contract, adhoc, daily wages, part time and regular employees of MCD.
Discussions with the PIO show that there appears to be some arbitrariness and lack of clarity in
this matter. The two respondents who are present are not very clear as to which officer in MCD
would be able to clarify this. Infact they have admitted that there is seems to some variability in
deciding these matters. The Commission sees that availability of this nature would create lot of
grievances and also lead to arbitrariness. The Commission requests the Municipal Commissioner
MCD to lay down a clear policy of this and inform all employees about this.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
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
07 June 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SC)
CC:
Municipal Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, DelhiPage 2 of 2