Central Information Commission
Mr.Kalu Ram vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 16 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002281/14626
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002281
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Kalu Ram,
S/o Sh. Jagbir Singh,
Gali No. 3, House No. C-20,
Shanti Nagar, Karaval Nagar,
Delhi-110094.
Respondent : PIO & Dy. Director,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Horticulture Department, Karol Bagh Zone, O/o The Dy. Director-Horticulture, Nigam Bhawan, DB Gupta Road, Anand Parbat, Karol Bagh, New DelhiDelhi.
RTI application filed on : 26/05/2011 PIO replied on : 17/08/2011 First Appeal filed on : 13/07/2011 First Appellate Authority order of : 12/08/2011 Second Appeal received on : 23/08/2011 Information Sought:
The appellant is seeking information about his post that:-
1 Is it right that Sh. Kalu Ram and Smt Savitri was appointed as Gardener in MCD, Horticulture Department on/since 01/04/1995. Give information on the basis of SBPF.
2. Is it right as according to the office order dated 06/12/2008, that the appellant was appointed as 'choudhary' with a pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590.
3. The appellant was received a rise in the payment from dated 01/04/2003, and Sh. Kalu Ram and Smt. Savitri has given a fixed pay scale of Rs. 2610-4000. How it is possible?
4. According to which basis the above said Gardener receiving more pay then the appellant.
5. Is it right that if an employee has a lower pay scale, then he received a less salary than the upper pay scale employee?
6. If it is right then why the appellant facing such losses.
7. The appellant urged to rectify his pay scale.
The PIO reply after the FAA order:
1. Yes, according to the Service Book, all the three employees were appointed since 1995.
2. The appellant was appointed as chudhary on date: 21/04/2005, according to the order no. ADC/ADH/DAII/20098/333 dated 06/02/2008, with a pay scale of 3050-4590.
3. The pay scale of the appellant was set on 2050-4590 since 21/04/2005. The Gardener Mr. Kalur Ram and Smt Savitri, has received the set pay scale of Rs. 2610-4000 since 01/04/2007. Both the employees had received ACP since 01/04/2007 that is why they received the more salary.
4. All the three employees are Metric Passed, and they received the same salary, but because of receive of ACP since 01/04/2007 that is why they received the more salary.
5. Yes it is true.
6. As stated in question 3 above.
7. It informed to you earlier.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given to the appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"Sh. Kalu Ram, the appellant stated that he has not received the reply to his RTI application. PIO/Dy. Dir. Horticulture confirmed that the reply has not been sent to the applicant. PIO/Dy. Director (Hort) is directed to give the reply within 10 days of the issue of this order. In case, the appellant is not satisfied with the submission of the PIO or there is difference of opinion, he is at liberty to go to Hon'ble CIC for further relief. The appeal is disposed off."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information had been given by the PIO. No information has been provided by the PIO after the order of the First Appellate Authority.
Decision:
The appellant has stated that despite the clear order from the FAA no information has been provided.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed by the First Appellate Authority to the appellant before 05 October 2011.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide.
The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 10 October, 2011. He will also send the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 16 September 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)