Central Information Commission
Mraanandkashyap vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 30 December, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Decision No. CIC/CC/A/2014/902616/SB
Dated 30.12.2015
Appellant : Shri Aanand Kashyap,
A3, Pandav Nagar,
Delhi110 092.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer
C/o FAA, Deptt. of Personnel &
Training, North Block,
New Delhi110001.
Date of Hearing : 30.12.2015
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.06.2014
First Appellate Authority's order : 01.09.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 02.10.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Aanand Kashyap filed an application dated 30.06.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Deptt. of Personnel & Training seeking information on five points regarding issue of DoPT's O.M.No.AB14017/2/2011Estt(RR) dated 30.05.2014, including (i) authenticated photo copies of all file notings and correspondence made for issuing O.M. No.AB14017/2/2011Estt(RR) dated 30.05.2014, (ii) entry post for Data Processing/Programming Staff after implementation of 6th CPC, copy of the relevant order may be provided, (iii) corresponding designation and grade pay assigned to posts of Data Processing Assistant GradeA and Data Processing Assistant GradeB after implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendations and as per OM dated 30.05.2014, copy of the relevant order, (iv) whether the posts of Data Processing Assistant GradeA and Data Processing Assistant GradeB still exists after implementation of 6th CPC, or these are merged as Data Processing Assistant with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/, and
(v) grade pay assigned to DPA GradeA and DPA GradeB, after implementation of 6th CPC recommendations, as there is no post of DPA GradeA and DPA GradeB as per model Recruitment Rules vide OM dated 30.05.2014.
2. The appellant filed second appeal before the Commission on 02.10.2014 on the ground that the CPIO as well as the FAA has given reply that no material information is available and the reply of the CPIO is against the rules of RTI.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Aanand Kashyap and the respondent Shri Jitendra R. Gaikwad, CPIO and Under Secretary, DOPT were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that complete information has not been provided to him in response to his RTI application dated 30.06.2014.
5. The respondent submitted that information has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 31.07.2014. The respondent further submitted that no material information is available on para2, 3, 4 and 5 of the RTI application.
Decision:
6. The Commission heard the submission of both the parties and perused the records. The appellant is of the view that complete information has not been provided to him. On the other hand the respondent has confirmed that complete information as available with the Department has been provided to the appellant. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to communicate to the Commission by 10.02.2016 by means of a sworn affidavit, that the available information has been provided to the appellant and that no other relevant information is available with them. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant.
7. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer