{"id":140373,"date":"2011-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011"},"modified":"2016-04-14T16:19:29","modified_gmt":"2016-04-14T10:49:29","slug":"mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Shashikant Yadav vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr. Shashikant Yadav vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2011<\/div>\n
                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                          Club Building (Near Post Office)\n                        Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067\n                               Tel: +91-11-26161796\n\n                                               Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/003205\/10818Penalty\n                                                              Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/003205\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant                           :      Mr. Shashikant Yadav,\n                                           R\/o 220, Swayam Siddha Society,\n                                           Punjabi Bagh (West)\n                                           New Delhi-110026\n\nRespondent                          :      Mr. Sunil Shanwal,\n                                           Tehsildar & Deemed PIO\n                                           O\/o the SDM(Punjabi Bagh)\n                                           Government of NCT of Delhi, Revenue Department,\n                                           Rohtak Road, Punjabi Bagh,\n                                           Nangloi, Delhi- 41.\n\nRTI application filed on            :      27\/08\/2010\nPIO replied                         :      29\/10\/2010\nFirst appeal filed on               :      12\/10\/2010\nFirst Appellate Authority order     :      18\/10\/2010\nSecond Appeal received on           :      18\/11\/2010\n\nInformation Sought:\n<\/pre>\n
The appellant sought information regarding the verification process carried out 2 years ago for
\nappellant by two police officials. Due to this, the post of appellant is provisional. The queries of
\nappellant are:\n<\/p>\n
   1. To provide with the current status of the verification process.\n<\/p>\n
   2. To furnish with details of progress in the matter after verification is done by police.\n<\/p>\n
   3. To inform with the reasons for delay in verification procedures.\n<\/p>\n
   4. To provide with estimate time period by which the verification would be complete.\n<\/p>\n
   5. To furnish with the normal time period taken for such verification procedures.\n<\/p>\n
   6. To provide with the details of correspondence sent to appellant’s office, if any.\n<\/p>\n
Reply of PIO:\n<\/p>\n
Note: Reply given after FAA ordered PIO
\nPIO replied for queries No. 1 & 2 that the verification details were sent to SDM Punjabi Bagh on
\n22.12.08. So the application of RTI has been transferred to the concerned department.
\nFor Ques. No. 3, the PIO replied that there was no delay on the part of PS Punjabi Bagh.
\nFor Ques. No. 4 to 6, the PIO replied that it is not applicable in the view of above.\n<\/p>\n
First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
No information provided by PIO.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                        Page 1 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
 Order of the FAA:\n<\/p>\n
PIO was ordered to “intimate the status of said letter to the appellant within 5 days. Incase, appellant
\ndoes not receives any information within the prescribed period as mentioned in this order, appellant
\nmay approach FAA within 15 days.”\n<\/p>\n
Ground of the Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Unsatisfactory information given by PIO\/SDM after 10 days of the order passed by FAA.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 07 January 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The following were present
\nAppellant: Mr. Shashikant Yadav;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. Sunil Shanwal, Tehsildar on behalf of Mr. Pradeep Kumar, PIO & SDM(Punjabi
\nBagh);\n<\/p>\n
        “The Appellant is employed in Ministry of Rural Development. His police verification was
\nrequired to be done and this was given to the SDM(Punjabi Bagh). In December 2008 it was sent to
\nthe Local Police Station for verification. Since the Police Verification report was not received by the
\nDepartment in which the Appellant is working he filed the RTI application on 27\/08\/2010 to know the
\nstatus of this. SDM (Punjabi Bagh) forwarded the RTI application to the SHO(Punjabi Bagh) on
\n04\/09\/2010. PIO West District of Police has informed the Appellant on29\/10\/2010 that his
\nverification form has been returned after verification to SDM(Punjabi Bagh) on 22\/12\/2008 and hence
\nthe Appellant’s RTI application was against transferred back to SDM(Punjabi Bagh).\n<\/p>\n
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) had ordered on 18\/10\/2010 that information should be provided
\nwithin 05 days, this order was not implemented. On 29\/10\/2010 PIO\/Additional Commissioner of
\nPolice-I had transferred the RTI application back to SDM(Punjabi Bagh) to which also no reply was
\nsent to the Appellant. Only on 07\/12\/2010 SDM(Punjabi Bagh) Mr. Pradeep Kumar informed the
\nAppellant that his office was unable to trace the papers related to the verification hence they again
\nrequested DCP Special Branch to conduct the verification. The sequence of events narrated here
\nshows gross inefficiency at the office of SDM(Punjabi Bagh). It is also clear that the order of the FAA
\nwas not implemented nor was information provided when the RTI application was sent back to
\nSDM(Punjabi Bagh) by PIO of the Police Department.\n<\/p>\n
It is evident that the Appellant has been put to unnecessary harassment of having to file this appeal
\nand coming before the Commission because of complete carelessness and inefficiency of
\nPIO\/SDM(Punjabi Bagh).\n<\/p>\n
Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It
\nmay harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive
\nand prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling
\nof helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of
\nundesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation
\nfor harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but
\nhelps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the
\noutlook.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission under its powers under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act awards compensation of
\nRs.2000\/- for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursuing this appeal and getting the
\ninformation late.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                            Page 2 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
 Commission Decision 07 January 2011 :\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     “The information has now been provided to the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The PIO is directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.2000\/- as compensation is sent to the
\nAppellant before 20 February 2011.\n<\/p>\n
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
\nPIO within 30 days as required by the law.\n<\/p>\n
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information
\nwithin the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
\nrequirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which
\nraises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate
\nAuthority has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the
\npenal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give
\nhis reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 28 January 2011 at 03.30pm
\nalongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
\nmandated under Section 20 (1).”\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 28 January 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The following were present
\nRespondent: Mr. Sunil Shanwal, Tehsildar & Deemed PIO;\n<\/p>\n
        The Respondent had claimed that he had transferred the RTI application to the Police
\nDepartment since the verification had been referred to the Police. On 29\/10\/2010 PIO of Police
\nDepartment had transferred the RTI application back since he had mentioned that after verification on
\nthe papers had been sent to SDM(Punjabi Bagh) on 22\/12\/2008. The respondent claims that he did not
\nreceived it. He admits that he received the order of the FAA dated 18\/10\/2010 on 25\/10\/2010 which
\ndirected him to provide the information within 05 days. From the fact that the FAA had ordered the
\ninformation to be provided within 05 days it is evident that he believes the information was available
\nwith the Department. The Commission asked Mr. Sunil Shanwal, Tehsildar to explain why he did not
\nimplement the order of the FAA. He claims that he was waiting for a reply from the Police
\nDepartment. He claims that the letter of 29\/10\/2010 from Additional Dy. Commissioner of Police-I
\n(West District) was not received by him. Thus he claims that he did not obey the order of the FAA
\nand apparently made no effort to see if the Police had sent any reply.\n<\/p>\n
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, “Where the Central Information Commission or the State
\nInformation Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the
\nopinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
\nmay be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has
\nnot furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely
\ndenied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading
\ninformation or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any
\nmanner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each
\nday till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such
\n                                                                                            Page 3 of 5<\/span>
\n penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the
\ncase may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on
\nhim:\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the
\nCentral Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”
\nA plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must
\nimpose penalty:\n<\/p>\n
1)     Refusal to receive an application for information.\n2)     Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30\n       days.\n3)     Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or\n<\/pre>\n
       misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request\n<\/p>\n
4)     Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.\n<\/p>\n
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ‘ without reasonable cause’.\n<\/p>\n
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a
\ndenial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
\nInformation Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-
\nsection (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two
\nhundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there
\nwas no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1)
\nof the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of
\ninformation by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the
\nRTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent claims that he did not received it. He admits that he received the order of the FAA
\ndated 18\/10\/2010 on 25\/10\/2010 which directed him to provide the information within 05 days. The
\ninformation as per the order of the FAA should have been provided to the Appellant within 05 days
\ni.e. before 30\/10\/2010. Instead he sent information to the Appellant only on 07\/12\/2010 claiming that
\nno information was available and that the verification report had been sent to DCP(Special Branch)
\nPolice Bhawan and no information available with his office. Mr. Sunil Shanwal, Tehsildar & Deemed
\nPIO has not provided any reasonable cause for the delay in providing the information. The
\nCommission therefore imposes a penalty on Mr. Sunil Shanwal for the delay of 36 days from
\n30\/10\/2010 to 07\/12\/2010. The Commission imposes a penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on
\nMr. Sunil Shanwal, Tehsildar & Deemed PIO at the rate of `250\/- per day of delay for 36 days i.e.
\n`250\/- X 36 days = `9000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit
\ncase for levying penalty on Mr. Sunil Shanwal, Tehsildar & Deemed PIO. Since the
\ndelay in providing the information has been of 36 days, the Commission is passing an
\norder penalizing Mr. Sunil Shanwal `9000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                           Page 4 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
 The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `9,000\/-
\nfrom the salary of Mr. Sunil Shanwal and remit the same by a demand draft or a
\nBanker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New
\nDelhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy
\nSecretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
\nNew Delhi – 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `4500\/ per month
\nevery month from the salary of Mr. Sunil Shanwal and remitted by the 10th March 2011
\nand 10th April 2011. The total amount of `9000\/- will be remitted by 10th of April,
\n2011.\n<\/p>\n
This decision is announced in open chamber.\n<\/p>\n
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                 Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                       Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                                 28 January 2011
\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (GJ)<\/p>\n
CC:<\/p>\n
\n\nTo,\n\n1-        The Chief Secretary\n          GNCT of Delhi\n          New Delhi\n2-        Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,\n          Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary\n          Central Information Commission,\n          2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,\n          New Delhi - 110066\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                              Page 5 of 5<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr. Shashikant Yadav vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/003205\/10818Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/003205 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Shashikant Yadav, R\/o 220, Swayam Siddha Society, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-140373","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr. Shashikant Yadav vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Shashikant Yadav vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-14T10:49:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Shashikant Yadav vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-14T10:49:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1960,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr. Shashikant Yadav vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-14T10:49:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Shashikant Yadav vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr. Shashikant Yadav vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Shashikant Yadav vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-14T10:49:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Shashikant Yadav vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-14T10:49:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011"},"wordCount":1960,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011","name":"Mr. Shashikant Yadav vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-14T10:49:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-shashikant-yadav-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Shashikant Yadav vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140373","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=140373"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140373\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}