Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Central Information Commission

Smt.Sudesh Kumari vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 21 July, 2011

                            CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                Club Building (Near Post Office)
                              Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                     Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                             Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2011/001292/13578
                                                                    Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001292
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant:                           :      Smt. Sudesh Kumari
                                            W/o Late Des Raj Ex. ATI (Tocken No.14788),
                                            A-70, Street No.6,
                                            Jagat Puri, Delhi- 110051

Respondent                           :      Ms. Renu Popli
                                            PIO & Sr. Manager (P&SO)
                                            Delhi Transport Corporation (HQ)
                                            BBM Complex, Kingsway Camp,
                                            New Delhi-110009

RTI application:          23.12.2010
PIO reply:                21.01.2011
First appeal:             01.02.2011
FAA order:                09.03.2011
Second appeal:            05.05.2011

Information sought

:

1. What is the DTC Policy regarding Employment on compassionate ground in DTC ? Provide me photocopy.
2. Three letters have been sent to DTC for transfer of seniority on compassionate ground;

Diary No. a) NND/1394/dt. 07.5.2010

b) NND/1713/ dt. 11.05.2010 (also mentioned as NND/1413/dt 11.05.2010)

c) NND/3059/dt. 27.09.2010 What are the reasons for not replying these three letters so far?

3. Provide me the details of Employee Responsibility for addressing the matter of these three letters.

4. What actions have been taken by DTC in matter of these three letters?

5. Provide me the photocopy of all Office notes and remarks regarding these three letters.

PIO's reply:

Requisite information as received from D.M.N.N. Depot has been provided.
Grounds for First appeal:
Reply to Point No.1 is totally misleading in which the appellant has been asked to approach the Personnel Dept. of DTC HQ to get the requisite information.
Reply to Point No.2: Reply supplied in one sentence does not justify the reasons of non-compliance to 3 letters.
Reply to Point No.3: The statement that Departmental process is going on is an effort to keep the appellant in dark.
Reply to Point No.4: The response that Departmental process is going on is a stereotype. Reply to Point No.5: Departmental process is going on. Except one copy in response to my third letter nothing has been sent to me, keeping in abeyance the fate of other 02 letters, which shows the irresponsible callous attitude of the DTC authorities. FAA order:
A copy of Scheme for compassionate appointment, 1984 issued by DOPT has been given to the appellant. Information regarding Q.No.2 to 5, it has been ordered that specific replies should be sent to the appellant by Dy. CGM (East) and Manager (PLD) within 10 days of the receipt of this order.
Grounds for Second appeal:
PIO did not supply requisite information and suggested to approach the concerned Deptt. to get the information. PIO sent misleading information after the time limit of 30 days and the DTC authorities added the word contractual basis with malafide intention. The FAA neither sent the reply to Complaint dt. 17.2.2011 regarding misleading information sent by PIO nor passed order to send the reply. The photocopy of scheme for compassionate appointment 1984 has been given to me but not mentioned since when it was implemented in DTC. It is incomplete information. Manager (PLD) supplied no information and guided the appellant to approach another dept. of DTC. He violated the order of FAA to supply the specific information within 10 days. The time limit of 45 days of First Appeal has been violated as per RTI Act, 2005. And, no information has yet been supplied in response to Q.No.2 to 5.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present Appellant: Mr. Dheeraj Malhotra representing Smt. Sudesh Kumari; Respondent: Ms. Renu Popli, PIO & Sr. Manager (P&SO);
The PIO has provided information but is now directed to give the following additional information to the Appellant:
1- The year from which DTC is following DOPT's policy for compassionate appointment.
2- The PIO claims that he has sent the photocopies of the office note and remarks regarding three letters sent by the Appellant. The PIO is directed to send these again duly attested to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 05 August 2011 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 21 July 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (MS))