CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000989/7911Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000989
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. V.K. Gupta
C-7-B, Mandawali Fazalpur,
Uncheapar, Delhi – 110092.
Respondent : Ms. Renu Popli
Public Information Officer &
Senior Manager (Admn.)
Delhi Transport Corporation,
B.B.M. Complex/Depot.
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 22/10/2009
PIO replied : Not enclosed
First appeal filed on : 11/01/2010
First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 09/02/2010
Second Appeal received on : 20/04/2010
The Appellant wanted information in regard to Suspended Disabled Employees in DTC and Conveyance
Allowance to disabled Employees.
Sl. Information Sought
RTI application dated 21/10/09:
1. Names of disabled employees suspended along with reasons during January,2007-September,2009 in
DTC, Depot-wise (noting of each employee case) Names of disabled employees suspended along with
reasons during January,2007-September,2009 in DTC, Depot-wise (noting of each employee case)
2. Names of the above employees suspended and reinstated.
3. Names of the above employees who have been given salary and other dues after reinstatement of the
suspension period.
4. Names of the employees who have not been given salary and other dues after instatement and reasons.
RTI application dated 22/10/09:
1. Number of disabled employees in DTC getting T.A since January, 1996 to September, 2009.
2. Names of employees disabled in service during the above period.
3. Names of the employees disabled after joining service and getting double T.A.-Depot-wise.
4. Complaints received from Employees of DTC during the above period.
5. Action taken on each complaint-depot.-wise.
Reply of the PIO:
Not enclosed.
Ground of First Appeal:
Incomplete information received from the PIO.
First Appellate Authority (FAA) ordered:
Regarding RTI application dated 21/10/09:
Information sought being unavailable in the form of compiled data; the preparation of the same would
have disproportionately diverted the resources of the public authority.
Regarding RTI application dated 22/10/2009:\
PIO(HQ) had been directed to collect information from all depot excluding East Region(already given)
and furnish the same to the appellant within one month from the issue of the appeal order.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete information received from the PIO despite two orders having been had passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 31 May 2010:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. V. K. Gupta;
Respondent : Mr Subhash Chandra Sharma, Legal Assistant representing Ms. Renu Popli, Public
Information Officer & Senior Manager (Admn.).
“The Appellant has filed two RTI applications. In one of these the respondent shows that the
appellant was asked to deposit Rs.14/- for 7 pages of information. The Appellant admits that he had not
paid this amount and is directed to pay this and obtain the information.
Regarding the other RTI application about payment of disabled allowance. The PIO is directed to provide
the list of people to whom this allowance is paid alongwith file noting approving the payment of this
allowance.”
Commission’s Decision dated 31 May 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to provide the list of people to whom this allowance is paid
alongwith file noting approving the payment of this allowance before 15 June 2010.”
Facts leading to non-compliance hearing on 24 November 2010:
The Appellant vide his letter dated 07/09/2010 informed the Commission that the complete
information has not been provided to him. In view of this the Commission decided to schedule a non-
compliance hearing in this matter on 24 November 2010 to decide whether there has been a
noncompliance of the Commission’s decision or not.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 24 November 2010:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. V. K. Gupta;
Respondent: Ms. Renu Popli, PIO & Senior Manager (Admn.); Mr Subhash Chandra Sharma, Legal
Assistant
The Appellant admits that he has received the complete information. He states that it shows that
the public authority is discriminating between different disabled employees. The Appellant wants the
reasons for these. The Respondent states that there are no reasons on the record for this. The PIO has
provided the information based on the records and hence discharged his duty as per the RTI Act. The
Appellant will have to pursue the alleged discrimination at an appropriate forum. The Commission finds
that the information has been provided to the Appellant appropriately and there is no noncompliance by
the PIO.
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
24 November 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SC)