Central Information Commission
Mr. Israr Khan vs University Grants Commission on 24 September, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001887/4923
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001887
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Israr Khan
Department of Physics
Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh-202002.
Respondent : Mr. Brajendra Kumar
Dy. Secretary & PIO
University Grants Commission
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
RTI application filed on : 18/06/2009
PIO replied : 03/07/2009
First appeal filed on : 07/07/2009
First Appellate Authority order : No order
Second Appeal filed on : 06/08/2009
Information sought:
The notifications of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation by the Ministry of Human Resource Development vide its letter No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.1 (i) dated 31/12/2008 addressed to the secretary. University Grants Commission (UGC) and the same circulated by UGC vide its letter dated Feb 28, 2009 to all Universities for time bound implementation. Under section 6 (1) read with 7 (1) of RTI, the Appellant has asked following points:
1. After due adoption the said recommendation enforced by Ministry of Human resource Development, under what rule(s) Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Readers and Professors (position under erstwhile 5th Central Pay Commission) may be appointed as there are no such positions in the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation?
2. Under what head of funding and under what rule(s) of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation enforced by Ministry, appointments made for the positions of lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Readers and Professors (under 5th Central Pay Commission after duly adopting the said letter of Ministry) would receive salaries as neither the positions nor salary structure for them exists in the 6th Central Pay Commission? Bear in mind that the salary structure in the said letter by Ministry is given only for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, thereby abolishing the old setup of Lecturers, Senor Lecturers, Readers and Professors under erstwhile 5th Central Pay Commission.
3. Under what rule(s) UGC can violate the 6the Central Pay Commission recommendation by Ministry of Human Resource Development and its time bound implementation?
4. Under what rule(s) UGC can grant approval for appointments of Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Readers and Professors under erstwhile 5th Central Pay Commission to any Central University, which has already adopted the said letter by the Ministry of UGC in accordance of its time bound implementation?
Reply of PIO:
"The recommendations of 6th Pay Review Committee are yet to be finally notified."
Grounds for First Appeal:
PIO evaded all queries of the Appellant.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not ordered.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has evaded all four queries of the Appellant and no action taken by FAA Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Brajendra Kumar, PIO The PIO states that the information has been provided appropriately. This appears to be correct. The FAA has given an order on 1 September 2009 which has been given to the Commission by the PIO. It appears that the information has been provided appropriately.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
The information has been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 24 September 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.) (AK)