Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mrsatyanarayan vs Gnctd on 22 August, 2014

            CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
               (Room No.315, B­Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)



                   File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/001484­SA
                  (Sh.Satyanarayan Vs. Dte.of Education, GNCTD)


  Appellant                                        :         Sh. Satyanarayan

                                                    
  Respondent                            :          Directorate of Education,
                                        North­West­A, GNCTD, Delhi


   Date of hearing                                 :         12­08­2014


  Date of decision                                 :         22­08­2014


   Information Commissioner :                      Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
                                                             (Madabhushi Sridhar)
   Referred Sections                    :          Sections 319(3) of the RTI
                                        Act
  Result                                :          Appeal allowed/
                                                   Disposed of




       The appellant is not present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. R.P.Kukreti, 

ADE,  Directorate of Education, North­West­A,  GNCTD, Delhi.




FACTS

2.     Through the RTI application dated 11­2­2013, the appellant is seeking to know about  the implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendations in his case and increase in  the pension, etc.    The PIO has given reply by his letter dated 22­2­2013.   Not satisfied,  the appellant made first appeal before the FAA.  The FAA by his order dated 21­5­2013  upheld the information furnished by the PIO and disposed of the appeal.  The appellant  was   not   present   during   the   hearing   before   the   FAA.     Claiming   that   the   respondent  authority has not furnished complete information, the appellant has filed 2nd appeal before  the Commission. 

Decision:

3.           Heard  the  submissions  made  by   the  respondent   officers.   The  appellant   is   not  present.     The   appellant   was   asking   for   a   copy   of   his   Service   Book,   which   was   not  traceable.   On the basis of the copy supplied by the appellant himself, the respondent  authority re­constructed his Service Book.   He filed his grievance before the PGC also.  The respondent authority says that the appellant has drawn the transport allowance in  excess.   As the information has already been furnished, which the appellant himself is  having, there is no point in filing the 2nd appeal by the appellant.  The respondent officer  also   submitted   that   excess   payment   of   transport   allowance   paid   to   the   appellant   is  pending for recovery.  Hence the appeal is closed. 

     (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy  (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:

1. The CPIO under RTI, Govt. Of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education(North West­A) BL Block, Shalimar Bagh,       DELHI­110088
2. Shri Satyanarayan H.No.34R, Ward No.08, Vasant Vihar, Gannor SONEPAT, HARYANA