Central Information Commission
Dr. Kalwaran Singh vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development ... on 25 November, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002551/5691
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002551
Appellant : Dr. Kalwaran Singh
V & P.O- Padhiana,
Block-Adampur,
Dustt.- Jalandhar-144030, Punjab.
Respondent : Mr. R.Chakarvarty
Central Public Information Officer &
Deputy Secretary
Ministry of human Resource Development
(Department of Higher Edu.)
Room no. 525, C-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 08/06/2009
PIO replied : 24/07/2009
First Appeal filed on : 04/08/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not enclosed.
Second Appeal Received on : 08/10/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 20/10/2009
Hearing Held on : 25/11/2009
Information sought:
Appellant sought information regarding Scheme of Revision of Pay of teachers in Universities and Colleges giving some extracts from the letter dated 31/12/2008, Govt. of India, MHRD, Dept. of Higher Education to the Secretary UGC New Delhi in which it was mentioned, "
Teachers who complete their Ph.D degree while in service shall be entitled to three non compounded increments is such PhD is in the relevant discipline and has been awarded by a university complying with the process prescribe by the UGC.."
Appellant wanted categorically specification whether or not, according to the above mentioned letter, Appellant was entitled to these three increments on having obtained his PhD in English while working as Lecture in English on regular basis in a Punjab Govt aided college (Under UGC pay and service regulations) since August 01, 1997 . Appellant had not been given any increments of his PhD by the Punjab Govt. Education Dept. PIO's Reply:
Information sought by the Appellant is in the nature of interpretation of Government rules/orders. The information is not covered under the provision of RTI Act, 2005 Grounds for First Appeal:
Information not provided.
Appellant asked reason for not providing information sought regarding rules framed by the Dept. of Higher Education itself.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Information not provided by CPIO telling that information requested by the Appellant not covered under the Act.
CPIO and FAA both had shown no consideration for Appellant's request.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Kalwaran Singh;
Respondent: Mr. R.Chakarvarty, Central Public Information Officer & Deputy Secretary;
The FAA Mr. Sunil Kumar, Joint Secretary is guilty of dereliction of duty since he had not passed any order in this matter. The Appellant has sought to know whether he would be eligible for non-compounded increments for his Phd. Obtained in 2004. This is not a matter of any record and would imply that the PIO will have to interpret the rules and give a decision that the Appellant falls in a particular category. This is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
The Appellant had not sought any information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005.
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 25 November 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)