Central Information Commission
Satyapal Singh vs Gnctd on 12 November, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/134619
Satyapal Singh .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Delhi Sikh Gurudwara
Management Committee, Guru
Gobind Singh Bhavan, Gurudwara
Rakab Ganj Sahib, New Delhi - 110001 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.11.2024
Date of Decision : 11.11.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.05.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 20.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.08.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 19.05.2023 seeking the following information:
"I satyapal Singh was working as a lecturer in Guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic Institute (GTBPI) at Computer Engineering Department from Aug 2008 to Aug 2018.Page 1 of 8
Kindly provide me the following information under the RTI Act 2005
1. Provide me Seniority List of DSGMC employees.
2. Provide me my Personal Account Number as a DSGMC Employee.
3. Provide me my Employee Code as DSGMC employee."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Ms. Avneet Kaur, DCLO/PIO, DSCMC present in person.
A written submission dated 07.11.2024 filed by the respondent is taken on record, contents of the same is reproduced below for ready reference:
"1. That the Appellant is the Petitioner in the pending proceedings before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 12017 of 2018 which is being adjudicated along with the other connected matters in W.P.(C) No. 12016 of 2018 [Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs AICTE] and W.P.(C) No. 12029 of 2018 [Trupti Milan Purohit Vs AICTE] which are now listed on 8.11.2024 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and all the information and records sought in this case are available in the aforesaid proceedings and hence the present appeal has been filed by way of an abuse of the process of law.
2. Without any prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the Petitioners of the above-mentioned writ petitions including the appellant herein [in W.P.(C) No. 12016 of 2018, W.P.(C) No. 12017 of 2018 and W.P.(C) No. 12029 of 2018] had raised the same issues (which have been raised in this appeal) pursuant to which the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had desired the DSGMC/Institute to file appropriate affidavit in terms of the order dated 18.5.2013 and accordingly the necessary affidavit dated 13.6.2023 was filed in all the above mentioned writ petitions including in the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The said affidavit dated 13.6.2023 contains all the information and explanation which have been sought in the present appeal and hence it is submitted that the appellant has already been furnished with all the information but the facts relating to the said affidavit dated 13.6.2023 have not been brought to the notice of this Commission. The entire records of all the aforesaid writ petitions including the affidavit dated 13.6.2023 are available with the appellant of Page 2 of 8 this appeal also and hence the contents of the writ petitions [in W.P.(C) No. 12016 of 2018, W.P.(C) No. 12017 of 2018 and W.P.(C) No. 12029 of 2018] and the affidavit dated 13.6.2023 may be read as a part of the present reply also as a part of desired information as the answering respondents have nothing more to add by way of information. True and correct copy of the Affidavit dated 13.6.2023 filed in W.P.(C) No. 12017 of 2018 [Satyapal Singh Vs AICTE and Ors] is attached as Annexure-1(Colly)
3. That without any prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the DSGMC is a statutory body created under the provisions of Parliamentary enactment of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and Section 24 of the said Act enables DSGMC/Committee to establish educational institutions also and in view of the said enabling provisions; DSGMC had created and established Institute (amongst others) which is governed by the Governing Body of the Guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic Institute/Institute and hence it is clear that the none of the "staffs and/or employees" of Institute can avoid and ignore the provisions of Parent Act (Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971) which has been created the Parent Body (Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee/Committee/DSGMC) which has established the Institute and hence the term "Committee", as mentioned in Section 32 of the Act, has to necessarily include "all the staffs" of "all the Educational and other Institutes" created and established by DSGMC and hence appellant of this case is also covered by the said provisions and accordingly "all and any" dispute between the "employee (including past employee) of the Institute" and the "Management of the Institute (i.e. Governing Body of the Institute)" has to be necessarily treated and dealt with as a "dispute" between the "Employee" and "Committee" as the Committee (Respondent No. 4) constitutes the management i.e. "Governing Body" of the Institute and hence the term "Committee" in Section 32 has to be read as including the "Governing Body"
also for resolving the disputes between the management and employee. In view of the above, it is submitted that the appellant is also bound/covered by the provisions of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 which includes Sections 32 and 33 also.
4. That without any prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the Institute was functioning on the lands of Committee and further that in case of any shortfall on financial issues; DSGMC has been arranging/providing financial help to the Institute and hence appellant cannot avoid and ignore the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 which includes Sections 32 and 33 also and so far Committee has arranged the funds to the tune of Rs. 3,55,32,714/- (25.11.2014 to 30.9.2022) for helping Respondent No. 3/Institute for meeting the shortfalls on various heads including the head of payment of salary of the employees since the time it was created/established.
Page 3 of 85. That without any prejudice to the above, it is further submitted that the Institute was functioning as a self-financing/unaided Minority recognized Educational Technical Institute established (primarily for the benefit of Sikh Minority Groups) by the statutorily created Minority authority/DSGMC and hence it has got all the Constitutional liberties and protections of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and hence the provisions of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 [including the provisions of Sections 32 and 33] shall have to be mandatorily read as a part of the Constitutional protections and liberties mandated and assured to the Sikh Minorities under Article 30 of the Constitution of India for establishing, administering and managing it's Minority Educational Institutions and the said Constitutional right of Sikh Minorities mandatorily includes the right to provide a "separate mechanism" for resolving "any and all disputes" between the "employees (including past employees) of the Minority Institutions" and the "management of the said Minority Institution".
6. That without any prejudice to the above, it is further submitted that the act of the appellant in arraying DSGMC as Respondent No. 4 in his pending writ petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court makes it abundantly clear to inevitably conclude that even as per the appellant; DSGMC is a necessary party being the Parent Body of Institute and hence it is submitted that Appellant cannot ignore and avoid the provisions of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 [including the provisions of Sections 32 and 33] merely on the untenable ground that he was appointed through the management (Governing Body) of Institute as the said management of the Institute is in fact a management which has been constituted and nominated by DSGMC and hence for the purposes of resolution of dispute; the "concept" of the management of the Institute cannot be segregated and disassociated from Parent Body/DSGMC/ Committee which constitutes the management of Institute.
7. That before proceeding further it is submitted that Appellant has been terminated by the order dated 21.8.2018 and the said order also shows that GTBPI was/is an Institute of DSGMC and the said Institute is situated at the Land allotted to DSGMC. In addition to the above, the documents attached in the writ petition further show that the Institute has all along been acting under the control of the DSGMC through the instructions of President and General Secretary of DSGMC which were enforced through the Governing Body constituted by DSGMC for Institute and hence it is clear that the Institute is an Institute which has been created under the enabling provision of Section 24 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 and thereby rendering all the employees/staffs of Institute as liable to be governed by the provisions of Sections 32 and 33 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 also (besides other rules and regulations).
Page 4 of 88. That in view of the above, it is submitted that the appellant is an employee who was working for Institute which is created and established by DSGMC and considering the exact similar facts and circumstances; the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had intervened and invoked the provisions of Section 32 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 in the other cases also whose particulars are hereby given once again for the convenience of this Hon'ble Court:
xxx
9. That at this stage it will be important to point out that the appellant of this case was working for Institute at the relevant point of time when the termination order was passed on the principles of LIFO (Last in First Out) and at that time others had also suffered same termination orders as due the No Admission category orders (Academic Years 2016-17 and 2017-18) passed by the AICTE, there were no sufficient students available in the. Subsequently, the Institute got some students in the year 2018 due to which the erstwhile employees, including the appellant, was called for contractual appointment but he had refused to join whereas and others had joined on contractual basis.
10. That at this stage it will be important to point out that the Appellant (Satya Pal) of this case was working as Lecturer (Teaching post) since 01.08.2008 at the relevant point of time when the termination order dated 21.8.2018 was passed on the principles of LIFO (Last in First Out) and at that time others had also suffered same termination orders due the No Admission category orders (Academic Years 2016-17 and 2017-18) passed by the AICTE, there were no sufficient students available in the. Subsequently, the Institute got some students in the year 2018 due to which the erstwhile employees, including the appellant, was called for contractual appointment vide letter dated 17.09.2019 (page 28 of Affidavit dated 14.9.2022) but the appellant had refused to join whereas and others had joined on contractual basis as per the details given in para 8 of the Affidavit dated 14.9.2022.
10. That as far as the documents filed by the other Petitioner [Ms. Trupti Milan Purohit, Petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 12029 of 2018] are concerned, it is submitted that even her appointment letter dated 1.3.2008 shows that she was appointed with the approval of the Governing Body of the Institute which is admittedly created and constituted by DSGMC/Committee. Ms. Trupti Milan Purohit had given her Letters dated 18.8.2018, 6.9.2018, 7.9.2018 and 28.9.2018 to Respondent No. 4/DSGMC/Committee also which clearly show that even as per her case DSGMC is the parent body of Institute. In view of the above, it is submitted that the records relating to the RTI Reply dated 20.3.2021 [filed in the case of W.P.(C) 12029 of 2018] cannot Page 5 of 8 be relied upon for avoiding the application of Sections 32 and 33 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 for the following reasons:-
i. That the RTI Reply dated 20.3.2021 merely informs that Ms. Trupti Milan Purohit has been employed for Respondent No. 3/Institute and hence there cannot be any "Seniority List" involving the "Regular Employees" of DSGMC/Committee and Ms. Trupti Milan Purohit in view of the fact that unlike in the cases of the Committee, the tenure of Ms. Trupti Milan Purohit was dependent upon the "yearly renewals" of the "affiliations" of the Institute/Respondent No. 3 and hence Ms. Trupti Milan Purohit could not have been treated at par with the "Regular Employees" of DSGMC/Committee and hence for administrative reasons; the records of the Respondent No. 4/Institute are not kept with the records of the employees of the Committee as the tenure of the employees of the committee are "regular" in nature whereas the tenure of the Respondent No. 4/Institute has all along been dependent upon the "yearly renewals".
ii. That even otherwise the letter dated 18.5.2000, 18.6.2002, 10.8.2002 (at page 29, 31 and 32 of the petition filed by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma) clearly show that the acts of dismissal and confirmation of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma were being done with the prior approvals of President and General Secretary of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee. Even the subsequent Advertisement (at page 69) shows that the institute is functioning as an Institute of Respondent No. 4/Committee.
iii. That even the Memorandum dated 1.8.2003 issued in favour of Ms. Trupti Milan Purohit and Memorandum dated 1.08.2008 issued in favour of Mr. Satya Pal show that the same were issued under the approval of Governing Body of the Institute which is nominated and constituted by the Committee.
iv. That as far as the Institute is concerned, their Seniority List are maintained separately without linking the same with the regular employees of DSGMC and there is no allegation that any of the junior of the Petitioner has been retained while invoking LIFO.
11. That in view of the above, it is submitted once again that although the employees of the Institute are covered by the term "employees" within the meaning of Section 32 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 yet the Seniority List of the employees of the Institute are maintained separately and similarly the details of the employees of the Institute are maintained at the level of Institute as evident from the pending proceedings before the High Court of Delhi, as aforesaid, and hence it is submitted that no further information can be given.
Page 6 of 812. That in view of the above information and records, which are already available with the appellant as a part of his writ petition [W.P.(C) No. 12017 of 2018] pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the present appeal may be dismissed."
Respondent while inviting attention of the bench towards the contents of her written submission stated that factual status has been uploaded on the link given in the hearing notice. She has agreed to share a copy of her written submission with the appellant.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the records and in the light of the submissions tendered by the Respondent observes that issue under consideration has already been adjudicated by co-ordinate bench vide case File No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2019/112114 in the case titled Trupti Milan Purohit vs. GNCTD with the following observations -
".......Now, Commission observes that relevant information sought is available at Guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic Institute (GTBPI) as averred by the PIO. Thus, Commission directs the PIO to procure the relevant information from the relevant department and provide it to the Appellant free of cost, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission.."
In compliance of the above directions the PIO furnished a point-wise reply to the concerned appellant vide letter dated 20.03.2021 (copy enclosed in the file). The ratio of the above said order holds good for the instant case as well. Moreover, the Commission has no power to review its own order on the same subject under the RTI Act.
In view of the above, no relief can be granted in this matter.
Page 7 of 8Nonetheless, in the spirit of the RTI Act, the respondent is directed to share a copy of written submission dated 07.11.2024, free of charge with the appellant within one week from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee, Guru Gobind Singh Bhavan, Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Sahib, New Delhi - 110001 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)