Central Information Commission
Shri Rakesh Sharma vs New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) on 15 December, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01017 dated 4.11.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Rakesh Sharma
Respondent - New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC)
Facts:
By an application of 23.5.07, assigned ID No. 134, Shri Rakesh Sharma, Executive Engineer (Mech), NDMC, Auto Workshop applied to the Dy. Director (Civil) NDMC seeking the following information:
"1(a) What are the technical qualification of Rakesh Sharma, Asstt. Engineer (E&M) presently working in the NDMC Auto workshop as entered in the personnel file being maintained by OS (CE-II) establishment of the NDMC?
(b) By virtue of the above qualification is Rakesh Sharma, Asstt.
Engineer (E&M) a civil engineer or a mechanical engineer?
(c) What do the alphabets 'E' and 'M' stand for in the designation Asstt. Engineer (E&M)?
(d) What is the present place of the posting of Rakesh Sharma, Asstt. Engineer (E&M)?
(e) Is it true that NDMC Auto Workshop is "Part and Parcel" of the "Electricity Wing" as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 1990.
(f) What is the Salary Scale of Rakesh Sharma Asstt. Engineer (E&M).
(g) Is the above Salary Scale at par with the Asstt. Engineers of the Civil Engineering Department or the Asstt. Engineers of the Electric Engineering Department?
(h) Is it true that while working as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the water Supply division of the Civil Engineering Department prior to his promotion. Shri Rakesh Sharma, Asstt. Engineer (E&M) had been drawing his salary as per Shiv Shankaran scales but consequent upon his promotion 1 the salary of Rakesh Sharma, Asstt. Engineer (E&M) has been erroneously fixed under CPC scales?
(i) Certified copy of the rule position adopted by the NDMC which stipulates change of S. S. scales category to CPC scales category and vice versa in the case of one single individual during his service career as has been done in the case of Rakesh Sharma presently Asstt. Engineer (E&M).
(j) Inspection of the notings & all contents of the file on which the proposal was submitted and approval obtained for change of scales from S. S. scales category to CPC scales category in the case reference of Rakesh Sharma, Asstt. Engineer (E&M) when category of scales was change from S. S. scales to CPC scales subsequent to his promotion from Junior Engineer (Mechanical) to Asstt. Engineer (E&M).
(k) Reasons why the similar policy for fixation pay scale and scale category was not adopted in the cases of promotion from Junior Engineer (Electrical) to Asstt. Engineer (Electrical) in the Electric Dep't. vis-à-vis promotion of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) to Asstt. Engineer (E&M), when the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has already ordained that NDMC Workshop is "Part and Parcel" of the Electricity wing (CWP No. 1 of 1990).
(l) Is it true that the salary scale in r/o, Rakesh Sharma, Asstt.
Engineer (E&M), were re-fixed from CPC scales to S. S. Scales category, for the junior Engineer Period, consequent upon Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's direction and that for this deliberate and improper fixing of the scales by the NDMC prior to the direction of the court, penalty as "costs" was levied on the NDMC/
(m) Is it true that since the NDMC had again fixed salary under CPC scales category in r/o, Asstt. Engineer (E&M), instead of S. S. Scales category consequent upon their promotion have once again moved the courts?
(n) Is it true that there are two categories of Asstt. Engineers in the Auto workshop and they are drawing salary under different salary scales although they have been performing identical duties and have been mutually transferred with the work shop several times.
22(a) Rule position regarding grant of 'Time Scale' benefits to:-
(i) NDMC Staff drawing salary under CPC scales.
(ii) NDMC Staff drawing salary under S. S. scales.
(iii) NDMC Staff drawing salary sometimes under CPC scale and sometimes under S. S scales during their service care (for example as in the case of Rakesh Sharma Asstt. Engineer (E&M).
(b) Is the 'Time Scale' benefit provided to NDMC staff under CPC scales and S. S. scales reckoned from the date of induction in service or from the date of subsequent promotion?
(c) Can the 'Time Scales' be greater then or less then the promotional pay scales for an individual working on any specific post. Copy of the rule position thereof."
To this he received a response from the APIO Dy. Director (Civil) on 29.6.07, as follows:
"He is requested to inspect his personal file on any working day as per the convenience of Office of SO (CE-II) in respect of points raised in Para 1 (a) to 1(n). Points raised in Para 2 are clarified that copies of orders shall be provided to him against payment of charges, which shall be intimated during his personal inspection of the file."
However, because the information was not received within the mandated time limit, Shri Rakesh Sharma moved his first appeal on 26.6.07 before the Director (Pers.-1) NDMC. Shri Indu Shekhar Mishra, 1st Appellate Authority, in his order of 6.7.07 directed as follows:
"I hereby order that Shri Sharma will visit the office of the PIO between 9/7 to 13th to inspect his personal file. He may obtain any document which is on the file after paying due charges PIO will furnish the reply to all those questions which are covered under RTI Act, 2005. "
This order is endorsed by appellant as having attended the hearing in the chamber of Director (Pers.-1). Nevertheless, he has moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
3"(i) Non-providing of information, as sought under RTI Act-
2005, by the PIO.
(ii) No succor provided by the First Appellate Authority (Details attached at Annexure-B)."
The appeal was heard on 15.12.08. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Rakesh Sharma Respondents Shri K. S. Bharti, Dy. Director (Civil) Shri Rajneesh Tingal, Director (Pers) Appellant Shri Rakesh Sharma was asked whether he had availed of the offer to visit the office of PIO and inspect the Personal File after which the PIO had been directed to provide him copies of the documents sought. Shri Sharma, however, explained that what he wished was to have answers to his questions in the form in which they had been placed and did not want inspection of the file. He claimed that he had clarified this to the first appellate authority. who in his order had, therefore, while ordering the inspection of the file also directed the PIO to "furnish reply to all the questions".
Present Director (Pers) Shri Rajneesh Tingal submitted that the NDMC has no difficulty in providing the information sought to appellant, to whom the information sought is in fact personal. However, the then PIO has since retired and the then First Appellate Authority transferred. He admitted that at no stage had the Department taken the stand that providing the information would "disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question", which would warrant invoking Sec 7 sub-section (9).
DECISION NOTICE Under Sec. 7(9) of the RTI Act information is normally expected to be provided in the form in which it is sought. Appellant Shri Rakesh Sharma cannot, 4 therefore, be faulted for having insisted on his legal right in this matter. It would, however, have been easier if he had clarified this during hearing by the First Appellate Authority or again in his second appeal before us. Nevertheless, the information sought will now be provided to appellant Shri Rakesh Sharma within ten working days of the date of issue of this decision notice.
Because the response to the information sought had become due on 22.6.07 but was provided only on 29.6.07, the then PIO had rendered himself liable to a penalty @ Rs. 250/- a day from 23.6.07 to 29.6.07. However, since the CPIO has since retired, we are unable to impose any penalty. The present CPIO Shri K.S. Bharti is, however, directed to take note to ensure that the time limit mandated u/s 7(1) is adhered to closely when responding to an application under RTI Act, 2005. In accordance with Sec. 7(6) the information sought will now be provided free of cost. With these observations, this appeal is allowed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 15.12.2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(LC Singhi) Registrar 15.12.2008 5