Central Information Commission
Mrshyam Mohanparashar vs Training And Technical Education, ... on 18 February, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2014/901047
Shyam Mohan Parashar v. PIO, DTTE
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 24.09.2013 Reply: 15.10.2013 Time:
FAA: 11.11.2013 FAO: 11.12.2013 Time:
SA: N.A Hearing: 11.02.2015 Decision: 1822015
Show cause
Compliance
Result: Disposed of
Observation:
Parties Present:
The appellant is present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. Ravinder Singh
and Mr. Shashank Gupta.
Information sought:
CIC/SA/A/2014/901047 Page 1
1. Appellant through his RTI application had sought for information in relation to reason for not granting the lecturer selection grade in PBIII AGP Rs 8000 in respect of Mr Shyam Mohan Parashar Lecturer (Electrical Engg.) Sr Scale, G.B Pant Polytechnic, Copy of the Minutes of meeting regarding grant of lecturer selection grade PBIII AGP Rs 8000/ against the DTTE dated 05.09.2013.
PIO response:
2. For Point No. 1 PIO stated that the reasons are not covered under RTI Act and for Point No. 2, PIO stated that the copies may be collected from the branch after paying the requisite fee. Ground for First Appeal:
3. Nonfurnishing of information by the PIO with respect to Point No. 1 and direction to PIO to furnish copies of documents sought for Point No.2 in relation to which he had enclosed IPO.
First Appellate Authority Order:
4. That the reply of PIO is in order. As per the respondent, the case is under process and left out cases will be dealt soon. The custodian of records is directed ti solve the case at the earliest and inform the appellant.
Ground For Second Appeal :
5. Nonfurnishing of the information sought by the appellant. Proceedings Before the Commission:
6. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant submitted that he is working as lecturer in the respondent organization and he is denied the Selection Grade (SG) in his CIC/SA/A/2014/901047 Page 2 scale, whereas all his juniors have got and he had also submitted a complaint in this regard. In response to this, the respondent authority submitted that the relevant file of the appellant was under submission in the Delhi Sachivalaya and hence they could not provide the information. They have now got the file back and they submitted a set of papers to the appellant during hearing. The appellant after going through the said papers, complained that some of the facts mentioned by the respondent authority, in the said papers, are not true. The Commission advised the appellant that he may move a complaint to the respondent authority in this regard. The Commission directed the respondent authority to furnish information to the appellant as to the reasons for denial of Selection Grade to him as they are bound to give the same under Section 4(1)(c.) of the RTI Act within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order along with the action taken on his complaint. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar
1. The PIO under the RTI Act, Government of Delhi. Directorate of Training and Technical Education Muni Maya Ram Marg, Pitampura New Delhi110088
2. Shri Shyam Mohan Parashar CIC/SA/A/2014/901047 Page 3 H.No.1149, Sector46, Faridabad Haryana121003 CIC/SA/A/2014/901047 Page 4