Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ravinder Kumar vs Delhi Jal Board on 19 February, 2026

                                   के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                              नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं       ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/DELJB/A/2024/634055

 Ravinder Kumar                                             ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                    VERSUS
                                     बनाम
 CPIO
 Delhi Jal Board,
 GNCTD                                                   ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 21.05.2024             FA    : 18.06.2024            SA      : 07.08.2024

 CPIO : 03.06.2024            FAO : Not on record           Hearing : 18.02.2026


Date of Decision: 18.02.2026

                                     CORAM
                Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
                                     ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.05.2024, before the CPIO, Delhi Jal Board, GNCTD, seeking information as under:

"My name is Ravinder Kumar. I was working as a helper in Sonia Vihar Water Treatment Plant, Delhi-110094 on payroll of Jai Ganesh House Keeping Maintenance Services. My date of joining is 17-9-2010 and date of leaving is 31-10-2023. (Copy enclosed herewith an attachment). My total service is 13 Years, 1 month and 14 days. But however, my payment of Gratuity has not been received my till now. So it is requested to you please give the instructions to Sonia Vihar Water Treatment Plant, Delhi-110094 to release my payment of Gratuity through service provider agency Jai Ganesh Housekeeping Page 1 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/DELJB/A/2024/634055 Maintenance Services. Please reply the following question. (1). When will be received my payment of Gratuity."

2. The CPIO & Executive Engineer(E&M) TYR-SV, Delhi Jal Board, GNCTD, replied to the RTI Application on 03.06.2024, as under:

"1. The matter is related to Private Agency. It is does not comes under the purview of the division."

3. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 18.06.2024, before the FAA, Delhi Jal Board, GNCTD, stating as under:

"As per RTI reply on 3-6-2024. The matter is related to private agency Jai ganesh housekeeping and maintenance services and it is not comes under the purview of this division. you are absolutely wrong because your division is comes under principal employer and to release payment of Gratuity is your responsibility through service provider agency. I was working as a helper in Sonia Vihar, Water Treatment Plant on payroll of Jai Ganesh Housekeeping and Maintenance Services. My date of Joining is 17- 9-2010 and date of leaving 31-10-2023. My total Service is 13 Years, 1 Month and 14 days. (Copy enclosed herewith an attachment). But however, my payment of Gratuity has not been received me till now. So it is requested to you please issue the instructions to Sonia Vihar, Water Treatment Plant to release my payment of Gratuity through service provider agency Jai Ganesh House Keeping and Maintenance services. Please reply the following question. (1). When will he received my payment of Gratuity."

4. The FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

5. Subsequently, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.08.2024, stating as under:

"I request to competent Authority Please provide my payment of Gratuity from employer/ Principal employer Jai Ganesh Housekeeping &maintenance services, 248, Phase-I. Sector-13, Dwarka, New Dethi-110075. O/o The Executive Engineer (ERM), TYR-SV MOMUD, water Treatment Plant, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094."

Hearing Proceedings & Decision

6. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and the hearing notice issued to him on 29.01.2026 came back undelivered with the remarks- 'no such person'. Further attempts made by the Registry of the Bench to contact the Appellant telephonically revealed that his incoming call services are inactive.

7. The Respondent remained absent during the hearing and a representative of the Sonia Water Treatment Plant marked their attendance in the matter, however, the same was observed to be an unauthorized presence. The Commission later took on record the written submissions dated 21.01.2026, filed by one Kuldeep Yadav, CPIO & SE(WW)II, Delhi Jal Board, as under:

"After perusal of facts of the case, it is submitted that Sh. Ravinder Kumar was the employee & on payroll of M/s Jai Ganesh House Keeping Maintenance Services which was the service/manpower provider of M/s Suez India Pvt. Ltd. who is carrying out Operation and Maintenance of 140 MGD Sonia Vihar WTP for Delhi Jal Board. As such, the appellant doesn't come under the payroll of Delhi Jal Board. He was the employee of a private agency, which was service/manpower provider of DJB's Contractor and hence doesn't come under the purview of Delhi Jal Board. Also, this information has been given to appellant under the RTI Act vide letter no. DJB/EE(E&M)TYR-SV/2024-25/284 dated 31.05.2024."

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, observes that the RTI Application and the grounds of the First and Second Appeal are in the form of a grievance petition. The Appellant has neither sought any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, nor does his second appeal request for any relief in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, instead he seeks- 'instructions to Sonia Vihar Water Treatment Plant, Delhi-110094 to release my payment of Gratuity through service provider agency Jai Ganesh Housekeeping Maintenance Services'. For the said reason, the Commission finds no scope for intervention in the matter.

9. However, it is observed that the CPIO & FAA have failed to execute their statutory responsibility to respond to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act. While the CPIO provided an irrelevant and cryptic reply, without a reference to the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, the FAA prima-facie altogether abdicated his/her statutory duty to decide the instant First Appeal, which renders the channel of First Appeal redundant. Further, the Commission takes exception to the absence of the CPIO during the hearing, without any advance prayer for leave, and for disregarding the instructions given at paras 3(a) and 4(b) of the notice of hearing dated 29.01.2026.

10. In view of the foregoing observations, the CPIO is directed to send an explanation stating the reasons for acting in absolute defiance of the provisions of the RTI Act and for disregarding the stipulations contained in the notice of hearing. The said written explanation of the CPIO must reach the Commission, within two weeks of the receipt of this order, without fail.

11. A copy of this order is endorsed to the FAA to take note of the observations of the Commission and to ensure that First Appeal(s) are decided as per the mandate of the RTI Act, without fail.

12. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 18.02.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/DELJB/A/2024/634055 Page 5 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/DELJB/A/2024/634055 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)