Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Manmohan Singh Badyal vs Directorate Of Education on 25 August, 2023

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                          के न्द्रीयसचू नाआयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                       बाबागंगनाथमागग, मनु नरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

निकायतसंख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DIRED/C/2022/157446-UM

Mr. Manmohan Singh Badyal
                                                                       ....निकायतकताग/Complainant

                                           VERSUS
                                             बनाम

CPIO,
O/o. The Deputy Director Of Education,
Pio/Nodal Officer, Rti Cell,
Directorate Of Education,
GNCTD, Zone-22, District-South West-B,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043
                                                                        .... प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing      :              07.08.2023
Date of Decision     :              25.08.2023

Date of RTI application                                                   10.06.2022
CPIO's response                                                           13.07.2022
Date of the First Appeal                                                  26.07.2022
First Appellate Authority's response                                      18.08.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Complaint by the Commission                   08.12.2022

                                          ORDER

FACTS The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points, as under:-

The CPIO, Directorate Of Education, vide letter dated 13.07.2022furnished a reply to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal. FAA vide order dated 18.08.2022 stated as:-

Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Complainant: Present in Person Respondent: Mr Achal Ram DDE Present in Person The Complainant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that he had sought attested copy of the recommendation, orders and approval of the screening committee constituted for the purpose of MACP benefits as per rules in his case. He said that instead of providing information the CPIO had transferred the application to DDE ZONE-22, while the sought information was related to his jurisdiction, as per the Order passed by Mrs. Vimla Kumari DDE South West B-II through the administrative branch. He added that the PIO zone -22 has informed that the minutes of the D.S.C meeting regarding MACP are forwarded to the competent authority and will be provided on the return of the file. He claimed that the information is misleading since DDE south-west has already rejected his case and hence no reason is found to send the file to the competent authority. He said that the first appellant court directed the CPIO to provide a complete revised reply, but the Respondent failed to furnish the same. He submitted that he received a reply dated 8.09.2022 in which he was advised to visit the department website for his answer but he did not find any information on it. He added that all the replies he received till date are misleading and incorrect.

The respondent in reply stated that his file is in process. He stated that there was a 10 per cent penalty imposed on the pension of the complainant because of some leave travel concession (LTC) case against him. He added that because of the penalty, he was not eligible due to which the competent authority rejected his MACP benefits. He assured the complainant that his case will again be considered by the committee and if he is eligible then the benefits of MACP will provide to him.

The complainant said that all his counterpart colleagues who was in the same position are getting the benefits of MACP and he is being discriminated by the department. The complainant further requested the Commission to treat his complaint as the second appeal and direct the respondent t to furnish complete information to him.

DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission in response to the plea of the Complainant treats the complaint as a special case and directs the CPIO to re-examine the matter and furnish a correct, complete and detailed information to the Complainant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

Further, the Commission advises the CPIO to consider the case of the Complainant in the backdrop of the above facts and take corrective action if required, thus adhering to the law of natural justice .

The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत एवं सत्यानित प्रनत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उि-िजं ीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] निनांक / Date: 25.08.2023 Page 3 of 3