Central Information Commission
Mrjaswant Kaur vs Gnctd on 6 May, 2016
http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SA_A_2016_000166_M_184882.pdf
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2016/000166
Jaswant Kaur v. Dy.Director of Education(North East), GNCTD
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI/PIO: 207/25815 (36) FAA Order: 21102015 2nd Appeal: 612016
Show cause issued Hearing: 06052016 Decided on: 06052016
Appellant: Present
Public Authority: J.N.Aggrawal, DDE and another
FACTS:
CIC/SA/A/2016/000166
2. Appellant sought to know whether there is over staffing at any level for any post in all the branches of Guru Harkrishan Public School etc. PIO replied on 25.08.2015. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed First Appeal. FAA directed the PIO to provide reply as per the available record. Being unsatisfied, appellant approached Commission. DECISION:
CIC/SA/A/2016/000166 Page 1
3. The appellant is working as teacher in Guru Harikrishan Public School, Loni Road. She complained that the school is not paying DA not only to her but to all her colleagues since May 2014 and arrears of Sixth Pay Commission as well as DA since January 2006. Ms. Sandhya Gill says that inspite of several representations the management is not ready to implement the pay scales as prescribed. They court order to pay the arrears is also not implemented. For instance, Ms. Sandhya Gill says that she is entitled to Rs.16,00,870/. Though the third instalment is due on 3112016, the school is not acting on. The latest representation was given to the Education Minister, Mr. Manish Sisodia.
4. When Commission wanted to know whether they received it, Education Department officers did not reply. The appellant stated that the education officers did not act on any of their representation since 2011. Because of deliberate inaction of education department, they were compelled to file a writ petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which allowed the writ petition and directed the implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendations along with interest on arrears. The department never cared to implement this also. According to S.10(2) of the Delhi Education Act, private schools should pay to the teachers on par with the Govt. teachers. The responsibility of implementation of this is entrusted to the Education Department, who can pressurise the school by disaffiliating them.
5. Commission found that the education office has totally abdicated its statutory responsibility and actively defending the private school, as if they are agents of that school. The RTI wing and its CPIO has no hesitation to tell the Commission that they cannot even procure the information sought by the appellantteachers. Mr. Atul, who representing the CPIO says that the inquiry is conducted and the report is with the department, and he is not in a position to say anything about the report.
6. It is astonishing that the department conducted inquiry after 5 years of repeated complaints. It is very sad that the teachers are not allowed free mind and time to prepare for teaching. Instead, they were forced to take to streets and courts. The appellant stated that the education department conducted inspection because of intervention by the Dy.CM, Mr. Manish CIC/SA/A/2016/000166 Page 2 Sisodia, on their representation. They also stated that the education department should have come to their rescue and helped them realising their right to 6th Pay Commission recommended salary. The appellants represented to the Commission that the school management is acting in vindictive manner, terminated Ms. Sandhya Gill after 20 years of her experience, and suspended Ms. Sadhana Verma, who is about to retire in 2017 and initiated disciplinary proceedings against Ms. Jaswant Kaur only because of demanding their right to salary. Appellant had got a stay from the Delhi High Court against any coercive action against her. Inspite of that she was shifted from senior classes to primary classes only to harass her.
7. Commission found the PIO did not give any information on points (f) and (g) of RTI Application and even in his revised reply dated 552016, Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, DDE(Zone5), stated the school has given declaration that it is paying the salaries and allowances as per the 6th Pay Commission recommendations. They have also shown the letter from the school dated 2242016. The appellant stated that the school has not implemented the 6 th PC recommendation in regard to clause (4), DA, which was announced in July 2015 and Jan 2016. To that extent, the declaration given by the school dated 2242016 and the revised reply 55 2016, are untruthful statements.
8. The Commission directs Mr. Devender Tomar, PIO, Mr. Atul, Superintendent of RTI Wing, considering him as deemed PIO, Mr. J N Aggarwal, DDE of concerned zone, considering him as deemed PIO, to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against each of them for making untruthful statement in response to the RTI request, and before the Commission, why they should not be demanded to pay compensation to the appellants, and why disciplinary action cannot be recommended against each of them for suppressing the information, giving incomplete information and wrongful information, as per Section 20 of RTI Act, 2005, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, i.e., 6th May 2016.
9. The Commission also directs Ms. Sukhwant Kaur, Principal of the School to appear before the Commission and explain why she should not be deemed as PIO and impose maximum penalty for giving untruthful statement, and why she should not be directed to pay CIC/SA/A/2016/000166 Page 3 compensation to the appellant/teachers, within 3 weeks from today. She also should explain why Commission should not direct the School to pay compensation to teachers whom they have victimised for d10
10. The appellant stated that the school is taking an excuse that they do not have enough funds, and to verify this statement, they need the balance sheets. The Commission directs Mr. Devender Tomar, CPIO and Ms. Sukhwant Kaur, Principal to provide certified copies of balance sheets of the school for the years 2006 to 2016. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide the copy report of inspection 1942016, within fifteen days from today along with action taken report. The Commission recommends the deputy Chief Minister, Mr Manish Sisodia to take necessary steps to implement the 6 th Pay Commission and make necessary changes in the regulation activities by the Education department to prevent them from supporting the erring schools by their lethargy and inaction or active connivance. The case is posted for compliance and penalty proceedings on 6th June, 2016 at 2.30 pm. (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Addresses of the parties:
1. The PIO under the RTI Act, , RTI Cell, Govt of Delhi Directorate of Education, North East District Yamuna Vihar, Delhi110093 CIC/SA/A/2016/000166 Page 4
2. Ms. Jaswant Kaur, 990LIG Flats East of Loni, Shahdara Road, Delhi110093
3. The Principal/HOS Guru Harikrishan Public School Loni Road, New Delhi110093
4. Shri Manish Sisodia, Minister for Education, GNCTD Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi110003 CIC/SA/A/2016/000166 Page 5