Central Information Commission
Mr.Jnanendra Nath Dhali vs Ministry Of Communications And ... on 26 October, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/004130/BS/1099
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Jnanendra Nath Dhali
Ex LSG Supervisor
SBCO Basirhat HO (Now Retired Pensioner),
Basirhat, 743411, Dist North 24 Parganas
Respondent : CPIO & Assistant Director of Postal Services
(Court)
Department of Posts
O/o Chief Postmaster General,
West Bengal Circle, Kolkata - 700012
RTI application filed on : 17/02/2011
PIO replied : Not Mentioned.
First appeal filed on : 06/07/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 04/08/2011
Second Appeal received on : 03/10/2011
Information sought:
The Appellant through various queries wants to know concrete information as to why the order of CAT Calcutta Bench vide OA no. 1895/2009 dated 17/06/2010 has not been carried out after lapse of 08 months being instructed by ADPS (Court) Kolkata-Region, Kolkata-700012(Ref.no.-3.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and misleading information was provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Mr. Uma Shankar Ghosh CPIO through (M: 9433405589) The CPIO stated that the appellant has a grievance regarding non-provision of financial up- gradation under BCR scheme from 01/10/1991. He added that the appellant had approached the CAT which directed that the competent authority should examine his grievance and pass a speaking order and accordingly the matter was examined and a speaking order passed, however, the appellant was not found eligible for financial up-gradation. He contended that all information as requested by appellant in his RTI application dated 17/02/2011 had been furnished to him. The appellant is not present for making his submissions/contesting the facts.Page 1 of 3 Page 2 of 3
Decision Notice:
It appears from the submissions of the CPIO that information as available on record has been furnished to the appellant. However, if the appellant needs any further information the CPIO should permit him to inspect the relevant records within 15 days of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner October 26th, 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RM) Page 3 of 3