Central Information Commission
Sanjay Kumar Dubey vs National Institute Of Fashion ... on 5 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा /Second Appeal No. CIC/NIFTY/A/2024/655984
Sanjay Kumar Dubey ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Institute of Fashion Technology
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 03/03/2026
Date of Decision : 03/03/2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Ashutosh Chaturvedi
Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:
RTI application filed on 25/07/2024
CPIO replied on 28/08/2024
First appeal filed on 09/09/2024
FAA's order dated 15/10/2024
Second Appeal dated 16/12/2024
Information sought:
The appellant has filed RTI application dated 25/07/2024 seeking the following information:
"1. In ref to the letter no 2400 (10)/NIFT/DC/Estt. Misc. /2016 dated 14.06.2024 (Copy attached for reference), please provide me all the copies of noting, correspondence, order, approval in relation to the as it is said in the letter dated 14.06.2024 that the then Director, NIFT Delhi campus in 2018 has approved that Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/NIFTY/A/2024/655984 Page 1 of 5 NO EL due in the period of consolidated salary will be added further in Long term contract of the undersigned applicant.
2. In ref to the letter no 2400 (10)/NIFT/DC/Estt. Misc./2016 dated 14.06.2024 (Copy attached), please also provide copy of all Rules by which the then Director, NIFT Delhi campus in 2018 has approved that NO EL due in the period of consolidated salary will be added further in Long term contract of the undersigned applicant
3. (a) National Institute of Fashion Technology shall be governed by the provisions of the 'Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972' as per NIFT's circular no NIFT/HO/E.I/Gratuity Cases/2014 (Vol.II) dated 03.12.2015 (Copy attached for reference), In regard to the above circular dated 03.12.2015, Please specify that an adhoc employee of NIFT who have rendered more than 5 years of service without break in service is eligible for Gratuity or not.
(b) If he is not eligible for Gratuity in respect of para 3(a) above, please specify the reason why he is not governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
4. (a) How many number of employees who have rendered more than 5 years of adhoc service in NIFT Delhi Campus but there Gratuity Amount have not been disbursed as yet;
(b) Please also specify the reason of delay for not disbursement of Gratuity amount to them who have rendered more than 5 years of ad-hoc service in NIFT Delhi Campus;
(c) If the amount is not disbursed in above said Para 4 (a), please inform whether compliance of provisions of the 'Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has been taken by NIFT Delhi Campus or not."
2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant on 28/08/2024 stated as under:
"1. Copy of noting, correspondence may be provided on submission of Rs.6/- in favour of NIFT, Delhi Campus.
2. For desired information peruse NIFT website, Establishment Manual, Statutes, Appointment order and Act.
3 (a & b). An information-seeker can't demand from a public authority its opinion of seek its advice in a matter of the petitioner's interest and also a PIO is not expected to provide intangible such as interpretations, opinions, advices, Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/NIFTY/A/2024/655984 Page 2 of 5 explanations, reasons as it cannot be said to be included in the definition of information in section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
4 (a). the personal information of an individual employee, the disclosure of the same has no relationship to any larger public activity or interest. Hence, the same cannot be revealed under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(b & c). An information-seeker can't demand from a public authority its opinion of seek its advice in a matter of the petitioner's interest and also a PIO is not expected to provide intangible such as interpretations, opinions, advices, explanations, reasons as it cannot be said to be included in the definition of information in section 2 (f) of the RTI Act."
3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant filed the First Appeal with the first Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 15/10/2024 stated as under:
"Reply to 1 to 4:- इस आदे श के जारी होने के 7 िदन के अंदर सीपीआईओ ारा ई-मेल के मा म से जानकारी दान की जाएगी।
The information will be provided by CPIO within 07 days of this order via e- mail."
4. Challenging the decision of the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant filed the Instant Second Appeal on 16/12/2024.
The Appellant vide letter dated 11/02/2026 withdrew the case stating, "I Sanjay Kumar Dubey, the appellant in the above-mentioned second appeal, most respectfully submit that I do not wish to pursue the appeal any further, as due to passage of time, the information sought has lost its relevance and the relief sought is no longer required.
Accordingly, I request the Hon'ble Commission to kindly permit me to withdraw the second appeal bearing File No. CIC/NIFTY/A/2024/655984 and to treat the matter as closed. This request is being made voluntarily and without any external pressure or coercion.
In view of the above, the hearing scheduled on 03.03.2026 at 11:10 AM at Venue Room No. 310, Central Information Commission, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067, may kindly be cancelled and the appeal may be disposed of as withdrawn."
Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/NIFTY/A/2024/655984 Page 3 of 5Written Submission of the Respondent dated 18/02/2026 is taken on record
5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Deepak Joshi, Joint Director/PIO participated in the hearing in person The Appellant has not availed the opportunity to participate in the hearing despite due notice of hearing and has further withdrawn his case vide letter dated 11/02/2026. The Respondent reiterates the facts of the case and further submits the information sought has been provided and the Appellant has withdrawn his case.
DECISION The Commission observes that the respondent vide letter dated 11.02.2026 withdrew his case. Hence the case is closed as withdrawn.
The Appeal stand disposed of Sd/-
Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशुतोष चतुवदी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/ Date: 03.03.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Singh Meena (राम िसंह मीना) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011- 26715467 Address of the Parties:
1. CPIO National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT), Delhi Campus, Hauz Khas near Gulmohar Park, New Delhi 110016 Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/NIFTY/A/2024/655984 Page 4 of 5
2. Sanjay Kumar Dubey Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/NIFTY/A/2024/655984 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)