Central Information Commission
Mr.Vishal Verma vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 November, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002136
Date of Hearing : November 17, 2011
Date of Decision : November 17, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Vishal Verma
34, South Anarkali
Main Road
Som Bazar
Delhi - 110 051.
Applicant was present.
Respondent(s)
Govt of NCT of Delhi
Principal Accounts Office
Dy.Controller of Accounts (Admn)
Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate
New Delhi.
Representative : Shri T V Raman, Assistant Accounts Officer
Shri Dinesh Kumar
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002136
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated 28.3.11 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO Govt of Principal Accounts Office, Dy.Controller of Accounts (Admn) NCT of Delhi, seeking information related to reimbursement of LTC Bills. The Applicant also sought the rules based on which the LTC bills of three officials were passed and the details of those bills besides the reasons as to why a similar claim bill of his (to those submitted by the three) has not been settled while theirs have been . The PIO replied on 28.4.11 informing the Applicant against point 1 that "the Pay and Accounts Officer of the Organisation is required to take up the LTC bills submitted by the DDOs of the departments of the GNCTD under the provision of para 4.15.1 of the Civil Account Manual."With respect of points 2 and 3 he stated that the "entitlement by train and by Road and the mode of transportation has been defined under Rule 12 of the CCS LTC Rules" . He also enclosed the reply dated 20.4.11 received from the Pay & Accounts OfficerXI providing the details of bills passed in the case of the three officials referred to by the Applicant in his RTI Application. Not satisfied with the reply the Applicant filed his first appeal commenting on the information provided. He stated that a proper reply against point 1, 2 and 3 has not been provided and also that information against point 4 is incomplete and misleading. The Appellate Authority held a hearing on 9.6.11 and disposed off the appeal stating that "the payment of Rs 13140/ towards Applicant's claim was made on the basis of sanction issued by his Head office. However after the discussion held during the aforesaid meeting it has been decided to review his bill in consultation with his Head Office taking into consideration the factor of shortest route to Kanyakumari from New Delhi and accordingly PAO25 of his department has been directed to re examine the Applicant's bill." The AA also directed all the three Pay and Accounts officers to submit their report within 15 days of receipt of his order. The Applicant thereafter filed his second appeal before the Commission once again stating that information is incomplete.
Decision.
2. During the hearing, the Commission reviewed the information provided against each point and decided as given below.
A copy of the rules for reimbursement of LTC bills may be provided to the Appellant .
3. The Appellant also wanted to know against point 5 of the RTI Application, the basis on which the claims of the three officials he had mentioned had been settled and the reasons as to why his bill had not been passed although his bills were similar to those submitted by the other three officials. In this connection it was noted that the Appellate Authority had informed the Appellant that the Pay and Accounts Officer PAO11 and 23 had been directed to reexamine/review the bills of the other three officials in the light of applicability of LTC Rules to their claims, in his order dated 27.6.11. The Commission therefore directs the PIO to provide copies of all the four bills including that of the Appellant and of the three officials along with the remarks on the bills before the review ordered by the Appellate Authority, and after the review along with a copy of any report that has been prepared based on the review, to the Appellant by 20.12.11.
4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Vishal Verma 34, South Anarkali Main Road Som Bazar Delhi - 110 051.
2. The Public Information Officer Govt of NCT of Delhi Principal Accounts Office Dy.Controller of Accounts (Admn) Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority Govt of NCT of Delhi Principal Accounts Office Controller of Accounts (Admn) Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate New Delhi.
4. Officer Incharge, NIC.
In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, giving (1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellant Authority, (4) copy of the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary indicate, what information has not been provided.