Central Information Commission
Ms.Medha Rani vs Moef, Chandigarh on 25 January, 2010
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000042
Dated January 25, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Ms.Medha Rani
Name of the Public Authority : MoEF, Chandigarh
Background
1. The applicant filed an RTI application dt.9.9.09 with the PIO, MoEF, Northern Regional Officer, Chandigarh requesting for information against 13 points with regard to Hindi Typists and UDC cadre. Shri Surendra Kumar, CPIO replied on 6.10.09 furnishing point wise information. Not satisfied with the reply, the applicant filed an appeal dt.13.10.09 with the Appellate Authority stating that information supplied is incomplete and incorrect. Shri S.K.Sehrawat, Appellate Authority replied on 26.10.09 informing him that information that has been provided is based on the available records. He also intimated the applicant that 3 posts have been sanctioned out of which 2 are of English Typist and 1 of Hindi Typist. Being aggrieved with the reply, applicant filed a second appeal dt.14.11.09 before the CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for January 25, 2010.
3. Shri Surendra Kumar, CPIO and Shri S.K.Sehrawat, Appellate Authority represented the Public Authority.
4. The applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The respondents submitted that after the death of a UDC, the appellant who is the wife of an employee working as an LLDC at present, is seeking information as her husband is trying to get that vacant UDC post. He further stated that as per rules the senior most person has to be upgraded and in this case the person who is the Hindi Typist is senior to the person who is the LDC and eho happens to be the Appellant's spouse. The applicant's contention is that Hindi Typist and English Typist need to be treated separately as they are not of the same cadre and only English Typist should be given the upgradation. However, as per Ministry's and CAT's orders if two persons are having the same scale then the one who is senior should be upgraded to fill up the vacant post and according to the Respondent since the .English and the Hindi typists belong to the same cadre there is no question of the Appellant's husband being considered for the upgradation. The Respondent added that on receipt of a copy of the second appeal from the Commission, a reply was again sent on 1.12.09 providing additional clarification. Since there is no communication from the Appellant after receiving the information, the Commission assumes that she is satisfied wit the information. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Ms.Medha Rani W/o shri Bishnu Kant Thakur H.No.17/B Sector-43/A Chandigarh
2. The PIO M/o Environment & Forests Regional Office (NR) SCO No.132-133 Sector-34A Chandigarh 180 022
3. The Appellate Authority M/o Environment & Forests Regional Office (NR) SCO No.132-133 Sector-34A Chandigarh 180 022
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC