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 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Msrajni Maindiratta vs Department Of Education,Gnct Delhi on 22 January, 2015

                 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                     (Room No.315, B­Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)




                   Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)

                                           [Information Commissioner]




                                            CIC/SA/A/ 2014/000960

                                  Rajini Maindiratta v. DDE(NW­B)



                                            Important Dates and time taken:


    RTI:  24.04.2014                            Reply: ­­­                           Time: 

    FAA:05.05.2014                              FAO: 26.06.2014                      Time: 21 days

    SA: 25.07.2014                              Hearing:15/1/2015                    Decision:22.01.2015

    Show cause :

    Compliance

    Result:         Appeal dismissed




Parties Present:


Respondent is represented by Ms. Rashmi Gahlaut, DDE, Ms. Shashi Saini, Education officer and 

Mr. Vishwakarma from Vidya Bharti School and the Appellant was absent. 


Information sought

:

1. Appellant through his RTI application had sought for copy of the file noting of Directorate of  Education circular dated 11.02.2009 for implementing the 6th  pay commission in Vidya Bharati  School, representation with regard to the non­implementation of the circular, Copy of the action  taken..etc Ground for First Appeal:
2. Denial of information First Appellate Authority :
3. PIO directed to provide the information in 10 days.

Compliance of FAA Order :

4. Para wise reply via letter dated 14.07.2014.

Ground For Second Appeal :

5. Incomplete/Non­furnishing of information.

Proceedings Before the Commission:

6. Heard the submission of both the parties.  The Respondent authority submitted before the  Commission that the Appellant case has already been decided by the Commission.  They further  submitted that she was a teacher who was working in Vidya Bharti School and is now under  suspension and also that her questions are in the nature of seeking clarification with regard to 6 th  Pay   Commission.   The   Respondent   authority   have   shown   to   the   Commission   the   information  furnished by them and also stated that they had left no grievance of her unattended. DECISION
7. The   Commisison   having   perused   the   records   considers   that   sufficient   information   has  been furnished to the appellant by the respondent authority and hence, the present appeal is  dismissed.

Sd/­ (M Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Bablu Lal) Deputy Registrar Address of parties

1. The CPIO under the RTI Act, Dy Director  of Education (North West -B), Directorate of  education, FU Block, Pitampura, Govt. of NCT of Delhi

2. Ms. Rajni Maindiratta H.No.42A, Ist Floor, Radio Colony, Opp. Parmanand Colony, main Market, Delhi­110009