Central Information Commission
Shri Ram Niwas vs New Delhi Municipal Corpn. (Ndmc) on 14 January, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01251 dated 27-9-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Ram Niwas
Respondent: New Delhi Municipal Corpn. (NDMC)
FACTS
By an application of 20-4-2007 Shri Ram Niwas of East of Kailash, New Delhi applied to the NDMC/ NDMC Auto Workshop seeking the following information:
"1. Total number of days worked between the afore said period and photocopies of the attendance register for the period of 26.11.95 to 11.2.97 of Health Department, NDMC, auto workshop, Laxmibai Nagar.
2. Number of trips undertaken during the aforesaid period and photocopies of Trips Register, Health Department for the period 26.11.95 to 11.2.97 as submitted by Shri Ram Niwas after signature of concerned authority.
3. Payment as made in terms of wages for the period of service from 26.11.95 to 11.2.97."
The fee for this request was paid on 8.6.2007 as per copy of the receipt attached with the appeal, which was assigned ID No. 177. To this he received a response on 3-7-2007 dating receipt of his application as 8.6.2007 presumably from the date of payment of the fee, and answering each of the questions as follows: -
"1. Shri Ram Niwas S/o Shri Udhmi Ram was never appointed by NDMC, so there is no question of having his attendance register in the department for the said period.
2. Shri Ram Niwas S/o Shri Udhmi Ram never submitted the trip record after signature of concerned authority.
3. As per record no payment was made to him."
Not satisfied Shri Ram Niwas through his advocate Ms. Deepali Gupta moved his first appeal before Director, NDMC on 7.8.2007 pleading that the information had been refused "on frivolous and false grounds".
1Upon this Shri S. P. Sanwal, Director, NDMC and Appellate Authority issued the following order: -
"By and large the information provided appeared to be in order except that the information in respect of Point No. 3 need to be modified as we have come across records which indicate payment of RS. 280/- in April 1996 and another payment of Rs. 2000/- in May 1996 to Shri Ram Niwas. The PIO shall provide this information to the applicant.
The reply against point No. 1 and 2 may be made more elaborate on the basis of information available in court case file ID No. 278 of 1998.
The PIO shall provide this information to the applicant within two weeks from the issue of this order."
In compliance EE (Auto) LBN and PIO in his letter of 14.9.2007 then provided the following information to Shri Ram Niwas through the latter's advocate Ms. Deepali Gupta "1. Shri Ram Niwas was engaged as driver on contractual basis w.e.f. in 26th November, 1995 with the condition that he will complete 50 trips in a month to get Rs. 2000/- @ Rs. 40/- per trip with the further condition that if any additional trip was made, incentive @ Rs. 100/- per trip will be given and if trips fall short of the minimum required number of trips, Rs. 50/- shall be deducted as penalty. Shri Ram Niwas was not appointed on regular basis and, therefore, no attendance register etc was required to be maintained neither he was entitled to salary as is paid to regular employee.
2. There is no record available to indicate the exact number of trips taken up by the applicant. However, he was paid Rs. 280/- in April 1996 and another Rs. 2000/- was paid in May, 1996 for the trips made by him (A copy of contingent bill dated 22.4.1996) the name of the applicant at Sr. No. 19 and a copy of contingent bill dated 22.5.1996 (the name of the applicant at SR. No. 25) in support of these payments are enclosed."
In his second appeal before us Shri Ram Niwas' prayer is "that the matter may be investigated and the PIO be directed to give the information and copies of the documents as sought."
The ground for such a plea rests primarily on the following:-
2"It is humbly submitted that the said refusal is wrong and frivolous as all the photocopies of records as sought are available with the NDMC. This fact is emphasised by their own letter dated 31.5.2007 in response to the application dated 20.4.2007 under RTI Act, from Dr. P. K. Sharma, Epidemiologist (PIO) stating that the reply has been prepared and requisite fee may be deposited to obtain reply.
It is submitted that all documents sought had been photocopied and prepared but on seeing the applicant when he went to collect the same ,he was refused to be given and instead asked to file a fresh application. That thereafter in the further proceedings the PIO and Appellate Authority has refused to supply the information as sought on frivolous and false grounds."
The appeal was heard on 14-1-2009. The following are present.
Respondents Shri S. P. Sanwal, Director and Appellate Authority, NDMC. Shri A. K. Vashisht, EE (Auto) and PIO, NDMC Although informed of the date of hearing through our letter dated 5-1- 2009 appellant Shri Ram Niwas opted not to be present. Shri S. P. Sanwal, Director, NDMC submitted a decision of the Labour Court on a similar application moved by Shri Ram Niwas in which by decision of 22.12.2005 Shri O. P. Saini, Presiding Officer Labour Court No. VII, Delhi has come to the following conclusion:-
"I am satisfied that the services of the workman have not been terminated illegally or unjustifiably and accordingly he is not entitled to any relief. The issue is answered in favour of the management and against the workman. Accordingly, the reference is answered in the above terms. Six copies of the award be sent to the appropriate Govt. file be consigned to record room."
DECISION NOTICE From the above it is clear that the Public Authority has provided such documents as are held by it to appellant Shri ram Niwas. In this case the very basis of the request i.e. the record of appointment of appellant Shri Ram Niwas and his attendance is itself in question, a question that has in fact been answered already by the concerned Labour Court, which is the competent 3 authority in this matter. Under the circumstances we find no substance in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 14-1-2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 14-1-2009 4