Central Information Commission
Mr.Suresh Chandra Yadav vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 11 August, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001726/8906
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001726
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Suresh Chandra Yadav
Security Gaurd,
MCD, Auto Workshop,
Jhilmill Colony,
Shahdara, Delhi-110095
Respondent : Mr. Devender Kumar
Public Information Officer & Chief Engineer Municipal Corporation of Delhi Office of Assistant Commissioner (HQ), Gandhi Mela Ground, Town Hall, Delhi - 6 RTI application filed on : 13/11/2009 PIO replied : 11/12/2009 First appeal filed on : 17/12/2009 First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered Second Appeal received on : 23/06/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Why has the promotion not been granted to the Appellant No promotional avenues are available to so far despite of 25 year of service given by the Appellant the post of security guard as such no and as per the rules and conditions given in resolution no. promotion can be given. However the 748 dated 19/05/88 passed by the permanent committee Appellant was given the benefit of 1st regarding the promotional avenues for the posts of Security Assured Career Progression Scheme and guards? this benefit is available if no regular promotion during the prescribed period of 12/24 years had been given to employees.
2. Are there any directions issued by the MCD to not to Same as reply to query 1.
follow the rules of DDA regarding the promotional avenues? If yes then please provide the copy of the same.
3. Please give the reason as to why the Appellant is not been Same as reply to query 1.
given his right despite of his repeated requests and submission of all the documents required for this post as per the rules and regulations of the Corporation?
4. Please brief that if the Appellant files the case in the court You may approach to the Court of Law against the department then from whose account would the on your expenditure. expenses be deducted? And who would be responsible for this if the Appellant files the case?
5. As per the rules please explain as to why the salary cannot Same as reply to query 1.
be given to the Appellant for the post of senior security guard or head clerk of Rs. 5500-9000.
6. The Appellant had sent 2 request letters to the Head Office Your letters are available in record, Page 1 of 2 regarding the promotion and high salary; so kindly inform which is under examination. whether any action has been taken in this regard or not and why?
7. The reasons why the Appellant's file had not been The P/file and S/book are available and accepted by your department sent through the EE (A) III? desired correspondence is not available in this record.
8. As per the rules of the Central Govt. and State Govt. no Same as reply to query 1. employ should be paid below his post then according to which rules the Appellant is being paid below his post?
9. Please let the Appellant know whether any promotion or Same as reply to query 1. As regard to high wage would be given to him or not and why is the transfer in DDA the records are Appellant not being sent to the DDA. available. You had filed another RTI application in which FAA had addressed that this cannot be redressed under RTI Act 2005.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not ordered.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and no order passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Suresh Chandra Yadav;
Respondent: Mr. A. K. Saxena, AC on behalf of Mr. Devender Kumar, PIO & Chief Engineer;
The PIO has given most of the information as admitted by the appellant. The appellant states that the only deficiency is that he has not been provided pre-sanction order if any required in query-2. The PIO is directed to give a copy of the pre-sanction order if any. If there is no such order this should be stated.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The PIO is to give information as described above to the appellant before 25 August 2010.
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 11 August 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(IN) Page 2 of 2