Central Information Commission
M Narayanalal vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 15 September, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सचु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/NITKS/A/2019/645557
In the matter of:
Narayana Lal M
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
National Institute of Technology (NIT),
Kurukshetra - 136119
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 05/04/2019 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 20/05/2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 15/07/2019 Date of Hearing : 14/09/2020 Date of Decision : 14/09/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over phone Respondent: Shir G R Samantre, Joint Registrar & CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the details of restructuring pattern of non-faculty staff of NIT, Kurukshetra. Provide the name of each staff, designation before restructuring/after restructuring, pay before restructuring/after restructuring, date of joining, qualification.
2. Provide details with regard to 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) implementation for the non-teaching staff, viz. name, designation, pay in 6th CPC, new pay in 7th CPC.1
3. Provide the details regarding implementation of the recommendations of the oversight committee report to all non-teaching staff, viz. name, designation, qualification, date of joining, old designation and pay, new designation and pay.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide any information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that till date the desired information has not been provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that since they received the first appeal of the appellant through email, a reply was given to him that since a proper RTI application was not received by the Institute, no information can be provided.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that till date no reply has been provided to the appellant due to the fact that the RTI application was not received by the concerned authority. However a reply was provided to the appellant on his first appeal wherein it was stated that due to the absence of the proper RTI application, no information could be provided.
On a query to the CPIO as to whether they sought a copy of the RTI application from the appellant when the related first appeal was received and whether any reply was given to the appellant after receipt of the hearing notice as a copy of the RTI application was also annexed with the notice, the CPIO submitted that no reply has been given to the appellant as the original RTI application was not received by them. The Commission is extremely dissatisfied by the submissions of the CPIO and the way the present RTI application was handled by them. The Commission accepts the fact that the original RTI application was not received by them but after receiving the first appeal, they could have asked the appellant to send a copy of the RTI application. Even after receiving a copy of the RTI application along with the CIC's hearing notice, the CPIO has maintained the same approach without making any effort to provide the information to the appellant.2
The Commission expresses its extreme displeasure at the conduct of the present CPIO for handling the RTI application in such a negligent manner.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide complete information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act within a period of 10 days from the date of issue of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The CPIO is also advised to be careful while handling the RTI applications and ensure that once a RTI application is received even as an attachment with other subsequent documents, it is to be replied to within the time frame stipulated under the RTI Act i.e. 30 days after the receipt of the RTI application. In case such a lapse is repeated in future the Commission will be constrained to take strict action against him.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna(वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दिन ंक/ Date 3