CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001745/4765
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001745
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Ms. Neelam
House No. 1633, Sector 6,
Bhadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjhar (Haryana).
Respondent : Mr. Narinder Pasi
Administrative officer & APIO
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
O/o the Development Commissioner,
5/9 Under Hill Road, Delhi-110054.
RTI application filed on : 10/06/2009
PIO replied : 24/06/2009
First appeal filed on : 30/06/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not replied
Second Appeal filed on : 17/07/2009
Information sought:
1. Whether any designation of Technical assistant exists in the Department.
2. If yes, then total number of designation of Technical assistant and their duty.
Reply of PIO:
1. Yes.
2. Number of Designations is 4 and details of work given below:
i) Planning, Budget, preparation of Action Plan and its implementation and
monitoring thereof attached State Plan, Non Plan, CSS schemes etc.
ii) Preparation of proposals for obtaining various financial and physical targets under
the attached schemes and submission to concerned Scheme Officer/ Officers.
iii) Advising to farmers, pubic etc in respect of dissemination of technical know-how
on crop production, marketing and related subjects.
iv) Correspondence with various Deptt. Of Govt. of Delhi as well as Govt. of India,
fixation of targets for blocks and furnishing requirement, zonal conference,
workshops, meeting etc.
v) Providing guidance on marketing, development of infrastructure, soil
conservation, irrigation, agriculture machineries and other services/activities.
vi) Any other duties assigned by senior officer/Deptt. etc.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Appellant is not satisfied with the reply given against point no. 2.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not replied.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Unsatisfied response received from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Suresh Kumar on behalf of Ms. Neelam
Respondent: Absent
The information has clearly been provided to the Appellant. The PIO has mentioned that
the duties being provided are for the technical staff whereas the Appellant insists that the
PIO must state that these are duties for technical assistants. The contention of the
Appellant does not seem to be valid since the term technical staff can certainly
encompass technical assistants.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
The information has been provided.
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
11 September, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(AK)