{"id":227637,"date":"2009-06-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009"},"modified":"2016-05-08T06:17:21","modified_gmt":"2016-05-08T00:47:21","slug":"mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mrs. Veena Bhat Pandita vs Department Of … on 10 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mrs. Veena Bhat Pandita vs Department Of … on 10 June, 2009<\/div>\n
             Central Information Commission\n                                                            CIC\/AD\/A\/09\/000658\n                                                              Dated June 10, 2009\n\n\nName of the Applicant                   :   Mrs. Veena Bhat Pandita\n\nName of the Public Authority            :   Department of Telecommunications\n\nBackground<\/pre>\n
1.    The Applicant filed an RTI application dt. 4.6.08 with the CPIO, DOT, New
\n      Delhi requesting for the following information:\n<\/p>\n
      i)     Copies of note sheets of the file no. 11-3\/2006\/STG-I and also
\n             inspection of file no. 11-3\/2006\/STG-I regarding promotion case of
\n             TES Group B\n<\/p>\n
      ii)    Copy of letter No. 5-1\/2000\/STGI.Pt dated 20.3.2001 from Secretary,
\n             DOT to UPSC\n<\/p>\n
      iii)   Copy of letter dater dated 16.5.07 from UPSC wherein the proposal in
\n             file No. 11-3\/2006\/STGI dated 18.8.06 was returned by UPSC<\/p>\n
2.    The CPIO replied on 24.6.08 stating that as the final decision in the matter
\n      regarding point (i) is yet to be taken it may not be possible to provide the
\n      copies of the note-sheets or allowing inspection of file. He enclosed a copy of
\n      letter sought in point (ii) and in the case of point (ii) he stated that the UPSC
\n      is being requested for their comments regarding furnishing their letter dated
\n      16.5.07 . He also added that as regards copies of file notings sought vide
\n      letter dated 9.6.08, the final decision on the matter is yet to be taken and
\n      therefore it may not be possible to provide copies of the same at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
3.    Not satisfied with this reply, the Applicant filed an appeal before the Appellate
\n      Authority on 24.7.08 requesting that timely information against point (i) be
\n      provided to her since she had sought the information many months prior to
\n      her appeal in respect of her promotion case. She also reiterated her request
\n      for copies note sheets in case the final decision in the matter has not been
\n      taken. She further added that in case it is not possible to allow her to inspect
\n      the files, she may be provided with copies of the note sheet numbering N\/43
\n      to N\/53 urgently as the same were required for her petition filed in the CAT.
\n     With regard to point no. (iii) in her RTI request she stated that she has not
\n     been provided with the copy of the letter sought by her.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The Appellate Authority, in his Order dated      August 2008 (date not given)
\n     provided pointwise comments as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     (a)    In connection with the furnishing of copy of note sheets\/nspection of
\n            file, it is intimated that the issue being dealt in F.No.11\/3\/2006-STG-I
\n            has not yet been finalized. As such it may not be possible to provide
\n            the copies of note-sheets\/inspection of files at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
     (b)    The UPSC was requested vide letter dated 24.6.08 to intimate as to
\n            whether their letter dated 1.5.08 could be furnished in connection with
\n            information furnished under RTI Act. The comments of UPSC in this
\n            regard are awaited.     The UPSC is again being requested to furnish
\n            their comments at the earliest.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Being aggrieved     with the continuous denial of information sought, the
\n     Applicant preferred a second appeal before the CIC       on 4.5.09 stating that
\n     she has been denied information by both the CPIO and the Appellate
\n     Authority and that the delay and denial of bonafide information has caused
\n     her severe mental tension, financial loss and burden effecting the court case
\n     in CAT,Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
6.   To a letter dated 23.5.09 from the Applicant          reminding the Appellate
\n     Authority to provide her copies of note sheets of file No. 11-3\/2006\/STG-I
\n     wherein promotion of \/DPC case of TES Group B to JTS Group A has been
\n     processed, the latter replied on 27.4 09 informing the Applicant that the final
\n     decision in the matter of promotion has not yet been finalized and that it is
\n     not possible to furnish copies of file notings and inspection of files till the
\n     promotion case is finalized.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
\n     hearing for June 10, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
 8.    Mr. R. R. Tiwari Dir (Staff) cum CPIO represented the Public Authority<\/p>\n
9.    The Applicant was present during the hearing along with Mr. S.N. Pandita.\n<\/p>\n
Decision<\/p>\n
10.   The Respondent submitted that the contention of the Appellant that she had
\n      been denied information is correct since she had been intimated well within
\n      the statutory period that copies of file notings and inspection of files can only
\n      be allowed after finalization of the promotion case of TES Group B to JTS
\n      Group A.     He   stated that the matter of promotion is confidential until the
\n      decision is taken and the Orders are issued.        According to the Respondent,
\n      allowing the copy of note sheets and inspection of file would have affected
\n      the process of promotion of officers concerned. He also added that the delay
\n      in finalization of the case is due to the Appellant herself since she has filed
\n      Original    Applications,   Miscellaneous   applications,   Contempt   Applications
\n      before the Hon’ble CAT. The Hon’ble Tribunal, according to the Respondent,
\n      has allowed the Department to make promotion to JTS and the process of
\n      promotion from TES Group B is likely to be finalized shortly. He assured the
\n      Commission that immediately after finalization of the promotion case the
\n      copies of note sheets would be provided and inspection of files allowed.\n<\/p>\n
11.   The Appellant submitted the following arguments for seeking the information.\n<\/p>\n
           (i)    Information sought is vital and significant since it relates to illegal
\n                  cancellation of 75 promotee quota vacancies of the year 2001-02
\n                  resorted by the DOT to deny        consideration of promotion to TES
\n                  Group B.\n<\/p>\n
           (ii)   Following direction of Hon’ble CAT , Delhi dated 12.5.06. the
\n                  Department intimated 108 promotee quota vacancies of ITS Group
\n                  A, including 75 for 2001-02, 9 for 2002-3 , 21 for 2003-04 and 3
\n                  for 2004-05, for consideration of TES Group B officers to the UPSC
\n                  and submitted a proposal for conducting DPC (Ref. letter dated
\n                  18.8.06 from Under Secretary, SCT). This proposal was returned
\n                  unconsidered by the UPSC for conducting DPC on 16.5.07           since
\n                  the Department had submitted the list of ineligible candidates who
\n                  had since been absorbed in BSNL (PSU Corporation) and ceased to
\n         be Government servants. It is the Appellant’s contention that as
\n        such the action of the Department in sending the list of ineligible
\n        candidates is in violation of the Tribunal’s Order dated 12.5.06 .
\n        The relevant portions of the Order against OA No. 1066\/2005
\n        dated 12.5.05 , pertaining to this case are as given hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
        ….. The Recruitment Rules do not provide that direct
\n        recruitment for a particular vacancy year is a condition
\n        precedent for consideration of the feeder grade , eligible
\n        officers or promotion to JTS for the vacancy year. If the
\n        vacancies for for the year 2001- 02 and 2002-03 pertaining
\n        to 50% promotion quota are available, respondents are
\n        bound to consider the eligible feeder grade officers for
\n        promotion in accordance with the recruitment rules and
\n        instructions for holding DPC<\/p>\n
        ….. The respondents shall immediately approach the UPSC
\n        for convening the DPC expeditiously             for filling up 75
\n        vacancies which are available in 50% promotion quota
\n        pertaining to the vacancies in 2001-02 by considering
\n        eligible officers.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)   The Department, instead of sending the revised list of eligible
\n        TES Group B offiers of DOT, to consider promotion for the 108
\n        already intimated vacancies (as already explained in point (i) ,
\n        sent the proposal to consider only 33 vacancies on 4.4.08
\n        showing favour to some while ignoring the claim of other
\n        eligible TES Group B officers and illegally cancelled the earlier
\n        intimated 75 quota promotee vacancies of the year 2001-02. It
\n        is the Appellant’s contention that the 75 promotee quota
\n        vacancies resorted by the Department were illegally cancelled
\n        by the Department on the pretext that these vacancies
\n        pertained to BSNL. According to her the illegal cancellations of
\n        75 vacancies resorted by the Department is contrary to the
\n                repeated advices of DOP&T and the Legal Department of DOT
\n               and is on record in the note sheets sought by her<\/p>\n
 (iv)          The    Appellant further averred that the cancellation of the 75
\n               promotee quota vacancies , without any proper explanation, has
\n               resulted in denial of promotion to the Appellant and other similarly
\n               eligible TES Group B officers. She supplemented her argument
\n               with a reply she had received from the CPIO dated 12 July, 08 to
\n               an earlier RTI request, stating that all the officers of JTS of ITS
\n               Grup A were holding civil posts (including the Government
\n               posts operated in BSNL\/MTNL) prior to their promotion to
\n               STS of ITS Group A. These officers were promoted to STS of
\n               ITS Group -A against the civil posts (including the Govt.
\n               posts operated in BSNL\/MTNL).              However, the Appellant
\n               pointed out that that as per information received from the
\n               CPIO vide another letter dated 22.7.08, no JTS posts were
\n               converted to non – civil posts. (Those converted were JAG –
\n               7,    STS-18, SAG -43 and HAG -16).        Hence the Group A pots
\n               including that of JTS operated in BSNL\/MTNL\/TEC\/VTM Cells and
\n               DOT are Government civil posts and also that no JTS post in BSNL
\n               was converted into non-civil post.\n<\/p>\n
(v)        The Department has been making promotions continuously in ITS
\n           Group A from JTS to STS, STS to JAG and JAG to SAG and has even
\n           made direct recruitments in the JTS of ITS Group A in BSNL and MTNL
\n           with the approval of UPSC. (Orders dated 27.1.05,            8.5.06 and
\n           16.7.08     on the ground that they are all cvil posts . However when it
\n           came to promotion to JTS of ITS Group A against the 75 promotee
\n           quota vacancies,      the authorities cancelled    the vacancies    with
\n           malafide and ulterior motives based on sheer bias that ITS cadre
\n           nurses against the promotee stream officers. .\n<\/p>\n
 (vi)   The Appellant further contended that the Authorities have not come clean
\n        on the number of vacancies for the consideration of promotion of the
\n        Appellant and other similarly eligible officers of TES Group B to JTS of ITS
\n Group A and this evident from judgment of Hon’ble CAT, New Delhi dated
\n28.11.08 . Relevant portion of the Order is as given hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
…..    On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the
\nparties, in our considered view, Government has prerogative to
\ncalculate vacancies and thereafter to effect promotion. Earlier, a
\ndicta of the Tribunal in consonance with the statutory rules
\nearmarked consideration of TES Group B officers to JTS of ITS
\nGroup A against 50% quota of promotion, this was not subjected
\nto availability or otherwise as to the rest of the 50% of the direct
\nrecruitment.\n<\/p>\n
……      In our considered view when a specific direction has been
\nissued by the Tribunal to consider in a particular manner the claim
\nof the Applicant for promotion in TES Group B as a feeder
\ncategory, no other methodology could b adopted which not only
\ngoes against the statutory rules bu also infiltrates into the area
\noccupied by the Judicial dicta. As such the directions of the
\nTribunal     have   been    made    otiose     and     redundant    by     the
\nrespondents. What we find is that while calculating the vacancies,
\nthe    policy   decision   taken   by    the   respondents    in   2006    by
\ninterchangeability of STS officers had foreclosed even the chances
\nof promotion of the Applicant and the consideration thereof has
\nnot only prejudiced the Applicant but denied fair consideration on
\nequitable basis, which being a fundamental right has been
\ninfringed.\n<\/p>\n
……      A good administration would be when their respective
\nclaims are balanced in such a manner that no cadre is denied
\nfair   consideration   on    equitable    basis   in   the   matter   of
\npromotion. The decision taken by the respondents in 2006 and
\nreiterated in 2007 is wholly contrary to their initial decision of
\n2004 needs to be reviewed on re-examination.\n<\/p>\n
            The Appellant averred that      despite the    Orders of the CAT given
\n           hereinabove, , the Department sent only a curtailed list of 33
\n           vacancies, thereby showing favour to some while ignoring the claim of
\n           other eligible officers including her.\n<\/p>\n
12.   On 12 June, 2009, as directed by the Commission, the CPIO submitted a
\n      synopsis of the case indicating the position with regard to the promotion
\n      of TES Group B officers to JTS of ITS Group A in the Department of
\n      Telecom.\n<\/p>\n
      He stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      ………. Mr.V.S.Tomar and others (officers of TES Group B) had filed
\n      an OA 1066\/2005 before the Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench seeking
\n      directions of the Hon’ble Court for expeditious holding of DPC for
\n      promotion to JTS of ITS Group A for the years 2000-01, 2001-02,
\n      2002-03 and 2003-04.            In this OA, the Hon’ble CAT vide order
\n      dt.12.5.06 had directed the Respondent to make the proposal for
\n      promotion to JTS of ITS Group A for the vacancies pertaining to
\n      50% promotion quota to UPSC.                  In its order dt.12.5.2006 the
\n      Hon’ble CAT has observed that the eligible officers shall be
\n      considered for promotion if the vacancies pertaining to 50%
\n      promotion quota are available.\n<\/p>\n
      The DPC for promotion to JTS of ITS Group A against the
\n      vacancies of 2000-01 has been held in September, 2005 i.e.
\n      before the judgment dated 12.5.2006.                 In compliance to the
\n      directions of the Hon’ble CAT, the Department had sent a proposal
\n      to UPSC vide letter dt.18.8.06 for holding DPC for promotion to
\n      JTS of ITS Group A against the 75, 9, 21 and 3 vacancies for the
\n      vacancy       years    2001-02,      2002-03,      2003-04   and   2004-05
\n      respectively.       After prolonged correspondence, the UPSC vide
\n      letter dt.16.5.07 returned the proposal to the Department on the
\n      following grounds:\n<\/p>\n
      i)       To exclude the officers who had been absorbed in PSUs
\n      w.e.f 1.10.2000 from the seniority list\/eligibility list; and\n<\/p>\n
 ii)   To recalculate the vacancies against civil posts only, which
\ndo not include the vacancies of BSNL\/MTNL.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission also advised to take the opinion of DoP&T in the
\nmatter, if felt necessary.\n<\/p>\n
As regards direct recruitment for the vacancy year 2001-02, the
\nDepartment had intimated 75 vacancies to UPSC for being filled up
\nin ITS Group A through Engineering Service Examination (ESE) –
\n2001 for meeting       the   requirements of   its PSUs.   In   this
\nconnection it was intimated to the Commission that the successful
\ncandidates may have to work on deemed deputation in a PSU and
\nmay be required to get absorbed in the PSU thereafter and in no
\ncase a recommended candidate will be left out unabsorbed.
\nHowever, the UPSC did not include ITS Group A in its notification
\nfor ESE-2001 in view of formation of BSNL and refused to carry
\nout recruitment in respect of services\/posts transferred to BSNL.
\nThe advice of UPSC at (ii) above for considering only civil posts
\nagainst the promotion quota was consistent with their earlier
\nstand in the case of direct recruitment.   The direct recruitment
\nvacancies for the remaining years were intimated only for the
\nrequirements of DoT.\n<\/p>\n
As per the advice of UPSC, the matter was referred to DoP&T
\nseeking their advice on exclusion of the absorbed officers of TES
\nGroup B from the seniority list and making the vacancies for the
\nyear 2001-02 as zero since these vacancies were not available in
\nDoT and were vacancies of BSNL. The DoP&T have concurred with
\nthe views of UPSC so far as (i) above is concerned. As regards (ii)
\nabove, the DoP&T have stated that the 75 vacancies existing in
\nBSNL\/MTNL for the vacancy year 2001-02 may also be included
\nfor holding DPCs.       The matter was further taken up with
\nDepartment of Legal affairs, who had opined for considering only
\nDoT optee officers in the DPC and to make the vacancies for 2001-
\n02 as NIL as these vacancies were not available in DoT. In view
\n of these facts, a fresh proposal was sent to UPSC by excluding the
\nabsorbed officers of TES Gr.B from eligibility list and also
\nexcluding the 75 vacancies pertaining to BSNL\/MTNL.\n<\/p>\n
The proposal sent to UPSC contained the 9, 21 and 3 vacancies
\n(total 33), respectively, for the years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-\n<\/p>\n
05. The Commission was also intimated to consider the vacancies
\noccurring due to retirement of empanelled officers should be
\ntaken into account for holding DPC for the vacancy year upto
\n2008-09.\n<\/p>\n
In the meantime, the Appellant filed an OA No.1298\/2008 before
\nHon’ble CAT, Principal Bench challenging the interchangeability of
\nposts of JTS\/STS in TERM Cells. In this OA the Hon’ble Tribunal
\nvide order dt.8.11.08 had stayed the process for holding of DPC
\nfor promotion and further directed to pass a speaking order to the
\nAppellant. In compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Court
\na detailed speaking order dt.4.12.08 was issued.      The Appellant
\nhad filed a contempt case before the Hon’ble Tribunal in which a
\ndirection was again given by the Hon’ble Tribunal to pass a fresh
\nspeaking order.    Accordingly, again a speaking order dt.19.3.09
\nwas issued to the Appellant.        However, she had again filed a
\ncontempt before the Hon’ble Tribunal which was disposed of by
\nthe Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dt.8.5.09 giving liberty to the
\nAppellant for challenging the speaking order dt.19.3.09 passed by
\nthe Department in appropriate proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
After settlement of the court case filed by the Appellant, the DPC
\nfor promotion to JTS of ITS Group A was held in UPSC in May,
\n2009   for   the   vacancy   year    2002-03   to   2008-09.   The
\nrecommendation of the DPC has also been approved by the
\nAppointing Authority i.e Hon’ble Minister of State and the order
\nfor promotion of TES Group-B officers to JTS of ITS Group A has
\nalso been issued on 12.6.09. With the issuance of the promotion
\norders, the decision\/action in this case has been finalized.\n<\/p>\n
 13.   The CPIO further added that now that the final decision in                   the
\n      matter of promotion of TES            of Group -B officers to JTS of ITS
\n      Group A has been taken,             and the file is now available with the
\n      undersigned, the Appellant may inspect the file                  on a mutually
\n      convenient date.\n<\/p>\n
14.   On careful consideration of the submissions of both parties, the
\n      Commission holds that denying the information by merely stating that the
\n      decision regarding promotion from TES Group B is likely to be finalized
\n      soon, without clearly explaining under what clause of Section 8(1)the
\n      information was denied is not acceptable. The Appellant had a right to
\n      know why a curtailed list of 33 officers was sent to UPSC, instead of the
\n      original 75 as reported earlier for the proposed DPC vide letter dated
\n      18.8.06.,   leaving   out   other    eligible   officers   without   any   logical
\n      explanation. (It was noted by the Commission that an attempt was made
\n      at explaining away the action by the Department by stating that officers
\n      were promoted to STS of ITS Group A against civil posts but according to
\n      the Appellant this is an incorrect statement since no JTS posts were
\n      converted to non – civil posts and that they were all civil posts).          The
\n      Commission further noted that the Respondent has averred in his
\n      submission that the Department of Legal Affairs had opined that
\n      vacancies were not available in DoT for 2001-02 and therefore only DOT
\n      optee officers should be considered in the DPC while making the
\n      vacancies for 2001-02 as NIL,         without substantiating this     explanation
\n      with any supporting documents, in its submission to the CIC . It is also
\n      important to point out at this stage that the Appellant has raised a much
\n      larger issue than just one of promotion of TES Group B officers; that of
\n      bias against promotee stream officers and in this regard, the Commission
\n      is of the view that such apprehension on the part of the Appellant and
\n      other officers of her grade should be put to rest through more suo motu<\/p>\n
      disclosure of information   .\n<\/p>\n
15.   In the light of the   peculiar facts of this          case, it is the considered
\n      opinion of the Commission that the complete information sought by the
\n      Appellant in her RTI request of 4.6.08 ought to have been furnished to
\n       her since the CPIO had failed to explain under what clause of Section 8(1)
\n      the information was being denied. The Appellant, as the affected party,
\n      was also entitled to the    information in the light of the alleged bias
\n      exhibited in the procedures for promotion of promotee stream officers,
\n      thereby denying chances of promotion to such officers and causing mental
\n      stress and financial loss to them. It is important to note that the action
\n      take by the Department with regard to the revised list of eligible officers
\n      was despite Orders from Hon’ble CAT, New Delhi and repeated advices
\n      from DOP &T and the Legal Department of DOT. (Appellant’s submission
\n      of 12.6.09).\n<\/p>\n
16.   The Commission, however, noted from the CPIO’s submission of 12.6.09
\n      that now a decision with regard to promotion of TES of Group -B officers
\n      to JTS of ITS Group A has been taken and that the relevant files       are
\n      available with him and accordingly directs the CPIO to provided by 10
\n      July, 2009 complete information (which includes inspection of files and
\n      supply of copies of     documents required by the Appellant ) under
\n      intimation to the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
17.   The appeal is accordingly disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              (Annapurna Dixit)
\n                                                          Information Commissioner
\nAuthenticated true copy:\n<\/p>\n
(G. Subramanian)
\nAsst. Registrar
\n Cc:\n<\/p>\n
Ms. Veena Bhat Pandita
\nFlat No. 154, Plot No.10
\nNew Ashiana Apartments
\nSector-6
\nDwaraka<\/p>\n
The Central Public Information Officer
\nDepartment of Telecommunications
\nRoom No. 419, Sanchar Bhavan
\n20, Ashoka Road
\nNew Delhi<\/p>\n
The Appellate Authority
\nOfficer in charge, NIC
\nDepartment of Telecommunications
\nRoom No. 419, Sanchar Bhavan
\n20, Ashoka Road
\nNew Delhi<\/p>\n
Press E Group, CIC<\/p>\n
Officer in Charge   NIC\n  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mrs. Veena Bhat Pandita vs Department Of … on 10 June, 2009 Central Information Commission CIC\/AD\/A\/09\/000658 Dated June 10, 2009 Name of the Applicant : Mrs. Veena Bhat Pandita Name of the Public Authority : Department of Telecommunications Background 1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt. 4.6.08 with the CPIO, DOT, […]<\/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-227637","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs. Veena Bhat Pandita vs Department Of ... on 10 June, 2009 - 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\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs. Veena Bhat Pandita vs Department Of ... on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-08T00:47:21+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs. Veena Bhat Pandita vs Department Of … on 10 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-08T00:47:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3452,\"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\\\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Mrs. Veena Bhat Pandita vs Department Of ... on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-08T00:47:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs. Veena Bhat Pandita vs Department Of … on 10 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Mrs. Veena Bhat Pandita vs Department Of ... on 10 June, 2009 - 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\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs. Veena Bhat Pandita vs Department Of ... on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-08T00:47:21+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs. Veena Bhat Pandita vs Department Of … on 10 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-08T00:47:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009"},"wordCount":3452,"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\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009","name":"Mrs. Veena Bhat Pandita vs Department Of ... on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-08T00:47:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-veena-bhat-pandita-vs-department-of-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs. Veena Bhat Pandita vs Department Of … on 10 June, 2009"}]},{"@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\/227637","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=227637"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227637\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}