Central Information Commission
Dr Palvinder Kaur Bakshi vs University Grants Commission on 5 February, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2019/603707/02809
File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2019/603707
In the matter of:
Dr Palvinder Kaur Bakshi
... Appellant
VS
PIO and Under Secretary,
University Grants Commission,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110002
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 23/01/2019 CPIO replied on : 16/02/2019 First appeal filed on : Not mentioned First Appellate Authority order : 22/02/2019 Second Appeal dated : 26/02/2019 Date of Hearing : 04/02/2020 Date of Decision : 04/02/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mrs C.P Gaur, Under Secretary and CPIO, present in person alongwith Mrs Manju Nagpal, Section Officer Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information with regard to withdrawal of advance increments. She has stated that she had done her Ph.D(regular) as per the norms of UGC in May,2016. Although, she was granted three increments as per guidelines of 6th CPC. However, the said increments have been withdrawn after implementation of 7th CPC. The college has stated that it has been done as per the guidelines contained in 7th CPC for recovering of all the advance increments from those who have done Ph.D after 01.01.2016 :1
1. Copy of direction for withdrawal of increments in respect of those who have completed their Ph.D after 01.01.2016 to PG DAV (Evening) college as well as to the Delhi University.
2. Reasons for not giving promotion in senior scale with full justification or copy of direction given to Delhi University and College by the UGC in this regard.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant has not availed of the opportunity to plead her case despite duly served notice on 22.01.2020 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED581058801IN.
The CPIO submitted that an apt reply was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 16.02.2019.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that an apt reply was provided to the appellant. Moreover, the appellant in her second appeal had not substantiated how the reply provided was not proper. Decision:
In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Appellant has not availed of the opportunity to plead her case or contest the CPIO's submissions. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 2