CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01578 dated .2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri V. G. Shende
Respondent - Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT)
Decision announced: 28.1.2010
Facts
:
By an application of 16.4.08 received on 28.4.08 Shri Vikas Ganapatrao
Shende of Varda, Maharashtra applied to the CPIO, DOPT seeking the following
information:
“1. I want information on action taken on my application dated
20.2.05
2. Which are the 16 arbitration awards?
3. For last how much period these awards are pending?
4. What discussions did Govt. of India hold on these awards?
How many times discussions took place? Why no decision
could be arrived? Please furnish complete details.
5. How many hours Govt. of India has spent on this issue?
Who were the participants?
6. Before these awards are accepted, from which authorities
these are routed?
7. How these awards are accepted, what procedure is
adopted? Please clarify.
8. If the award is not accepted, what procedure is adopted by
Govt.? Please clarify.
9. Whether Govt. has adhered to laid down procedure or not in
the context of these awards. Please inform.”
To this Shri Vikas Ganapatrao Shende received a point wise reply on
15.5.08 from Shri S.P. Singh Desk Officer (JCA), DOPT as below:
“1. Letter dated 27.2.2008 has not been received.
2&3. Details of 16 arbitration awards are attached.
4. In connection with these awards discussions were held with
the Employees several times.
5. Representatives of Employees as well as Government were
present before the Board of Arbitration during discussions.
1
6. Action is taken on these arbitrations by the concerned
Department, before Board of Arbitration accepts these
awards.
7. The procedure adopted for arbitration awards stands
included in the J.C.M. Scheme, which is available on the
website of the Department namely https://persmin.nic.in
8. Government does not take any action on the awards not
accepted by Board of Arbitration.
9. Government remains in touch with Board of Arbitration
Awards on the awards given by it as per JCM procedures.”
Not satisfied, however, Shri Shende moved an appeal on 26.5.08 pleading
as follows:
“1. To direct the CPIO to provide the information and for
necessary action against him for not providing information
within 30 days.
2. To direct responsible officer of the Ministries who are not
implementing the Govt. policies. which is a serious issue.”
This appeal was dismissed by the order of Shri Mahendra Kumar, Director
(JCA) dated 20.6.08 on the ground f time bar as follows:
“In this regard it is stated that the period of one month prescribed
under RTI Act for reply of the TI application is counted from the
date of receiving RTI application in the concerned department. In
your case the RTI application was received on 28.4.2008.
Therefore, it may be observed that the reply to the RTI application
was sent within prescribed period of one month.”
Shri Shende has then moved a second appeal before us with the following
prayer:
“1. Decision should be taken on all arbitration awards and it
should be implemented. Otherwise, there is no use of this
rule, which should be removed.
2. Orders be issued for disciplinary action on responsible
officers.
3. Orders be issued to implement all awards immediately.
4. Disciplinary action should be taken against all defaulting
PIOs & F.A.As.”
2
The appeal was heard with arrangement for videoconference with NIC
Studio, Varda, Maharashtra. Appellant, however, opted not to appear. The
following are present at CIC Chambers in New Delhi:
Respondents
Shri Dinesh Kapila, Dy. Secy. (JCA)
Ms.. Rajbala Singh, Under Secy. (A)DECISION NOTICE
In this case all questions asked stand answered by CPIO in the first
instance through his letter of 15.5.’08, written response to an application received
by him on 28.4.’08. It cannot therefore be held in violation of Sec 7 (1), which
requires that the time limit mandated apply from the date of receipt of the
request. As is apparent from the very first appeal, appellant Shri Vikas
Ganapatrao Shende is dissatisfied with the manner of granting awards, not with
the veracity of information supplied. Hence this becomes a grievance and outside
the jurisdiction of the Right to Information Act 2005.
It is correct that appellate authority Shri Mahendra Kumar, Director, has
dismissed the first appeal on the grounds of time bar alone. Nevertheless as will
be now clear there I no substance in the 1st appeal, which could have invited
closer scrutiny. This appeal being without merit is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
28.1.2010
3
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
28.1.2010
4
