Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Smt.Dropadi Devi Sharma vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 July, 2010

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

                                                          Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001484/8532
                                                                 Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001484

Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal

Appellant                                   :      Mrs. Draupadi Devi
                                                   W/o Late Mr. H.P. Sharma
                                                   DDA LIG Flat No.638, Pocket-D,
                                                   Dilshad Grden, Delhi-95.

Respondent                                  :      Mr. Rajendra Prasad

Public Information Officer & Senior Superintendent (Admn.) Department of Social Welfare Government of N.C.T. of Delhi GLNS Complex, Firozshah Kotla, Delhi Gate, New Delhi-02.

RTI Filed on                                :      27/05/2009
PIO replied                                 :      Not enclosed
First appeal filed on                       :      Not enclosed
First Appellate Authority Ordered on        :      09/09/2009
Second Appeal received on                   :      29/05/2010

Information Sought

1. The amount payable to the successor of Late Mr. H.P. Sharma on account of his rendering service from 09/12/1961 to 27/09/1976 including pension, leave encashment, gratuity etc.

2. Whether any other person besides the Appellant has taken Late Mr. H.P. Sharma's service benefit. If yes, then details of the same.

3. Whether any action has been taken on the various representations made by the Appellant. If yes, then details of the same.

4. Details of the action taken by the Government of India on letter dated 12/09/1990.

Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO) Not provided.

Grounds for the First Appeal:

Non-supply of information by the PIO.

First Appellate Authority (FAA) order:

A copy of the information was sent to the Appellant on the day of the hearing. In view of that the FAA disposed the appeal.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

Unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA and non-supply of information by the PIO.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present Appellant : Ms. Draupadi Devi;

Respondent : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Public Information Officer & Senior Superintendent (Admn.);

The RTI Application has been filed on 27/05/2009. The first reply from the PIO appears to be of 02/09/2009 in which it is stated that, "It is to inform you that the requisite information cannot be provided under Section 8(3) of the RTI Act." The appellant is an old illiterate lady who is a widow of one Mr. H. P. Sharma who is stated to have worked with the department from 1961 to 1976. She has been trying to get information about the pension, gratuity and other benefits due to her. Inspite of filing this RTI application no information was sent within 30 days and after over 3 months the PIO has stated that he will not provide information under Section 8(3) of the RTI Act. The Respondent was asked to justify how he could refuse the information under Section 8(3). Section 8(3) of the RTI Act states, "Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section:

Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act." Thus Section 8(3) states that out of the 10 exemptions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act only 3 will apply after a 20 year period and 7 will not apply. Thus this provision expands the amount of information that could be available to the citizens after a 20 year period. The PIO has used this provision absolutely conversely from what is stated. This shows that perverse attitude of the PIO in finding any excuse not do her work.

The Commission is also deeply distressed by the fact that even when an old lady is seeking information about dues which may be accruing to her since she says her husband was working with the department, the PIO has adopted an absolutely callous and insensitive attitude and misinterpreted the law completely. The Commission wishes that Government servants realize that some they would also retire someday and be treated in the same manner when they are trying to get their dues.

The PIO states that the person responsible for not supplying the information to the appellant was Mrs. Rekha Rani Sharma the then APIO.

The Commission also awards a compensation to the appellant since she has been harassed by the department by not providing information and making her unnecessary file an appeal before the Commission. The Commission awards the compensation to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by her of having to file and appeal and wait for information for such a long period of Rs.2000/-.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The Commission directs the present PIO Mr. Rajendra Prasad to provide the complete information to the appellant before 05 August 2010.

The PIO is also directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.2000/- for compensation is sent to the appellant before 15 August 2010.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the Mrs. Rekha Rani Sharma the then APIO within 30 days as required by the law.

From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the then APIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the APIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A show cause notice is being issued to her, and she is directed give her reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on her. Mrs. Rekha Rani Sharma will present herself before the Commission at the above address on 11 August 2010 at 3.00pm alongwith her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on her as mandated under Section 20 (1). She will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.

If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.

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 15 July 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND) CC:

To, Mrs. Rekha Rani Sharma the then APIO through Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Public Information Officer & Senior Superintendent (Admn.);