Central Information Commission
Mr. Jai Singh Yadav vs Directorate Of Education on 24 December, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002834/6077
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002834
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Jai Singh Yadav
193B, Street No. 14, Balbir Nagar Extension
(Nalapur), Shahdara,
Delhi - 110032
Respondent : Mr. R. N. Sharma
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director Directorate of Education O/o the Dy. Director of Education, District North East, RTI Cell, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 12/04/2008 PIO replied : 05/06/2008 First appeal filed on : 24/04/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 27/05/2009 Second Appeal received on : 31/10/2009 Date of Notice of Hearing : 24/11/2009 Hearing Held on : 24/12/2009 S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Provisional period for a an ex serviceman Did not pertain to vigilance branch.
employed as a Physical Education teacher (PET) in Delhi Administrative school and the procedure and documents required to become permanent.
2. Details as to promotion of an ex serviceman Did not pertain to vigilance branch.
having the rank of sergeant at time of retirement, and who had been teaching physical education for 13 years . Could he get a Senior Scale on the basis of his rank and if not why?
3. Details of the Appellant's LTC case. The matter was under investigation by the IO. Further, the report was still awaited from the DDE schools. The time taken to settle the case could only be obtained from the IO.
The status of LTC now onwards did not pertain to the vigilance branch.
4. Reasons as to why the Appellant was not Did not pertain to vigilance branch.
given a senior scale when his colleague Sh Man Mohan Badyal was promoted to PGT.
5. Reasons as to why Sh Raghubar Dayal & Sh Did not pertain to vigilance branch.
Gopichand Sharma whose names appeared on the list of defaulters had retired and why Sh Raghraj's name did not appear in the defaulters list.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Order of the FAA:
The FAA observed that the reply to queries 1 and 2 had been appropriately provided. Regarding the other, the PIO was directed to furnish the reply to the applicant directly.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
That the Appellant has still not been supplied with the proper information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Jai Singh Yadav;
Respondent : Mr. M.K.Malhotra, Nodal officer on behalf of Mr. R. N. Sharma, PIO & Dy. Director;
The appellant is seeking information about the status of the LTC case. The papers appear to have been going to various offices without the information required by him being provided. The Respondent states that the bogus LTC case investigation is not yet over. The appellant claims that this investigation has been going on since May 1998. The appellant and the respondent states that the bogus LTC case investigation has been going on under the chairmanship of the DDE schools. The Commission finds it very intriguing that the bogus LTC case investigation can continue for over 11 years. The Commission directs the Director of Education to ensure that the information about this mammoth investigation is provided to the appellant and the Commission by the appropriate officer. This investigation will indicate the number of sittings of this committee and the progress of this inquiry. This will be send to the appellant and the Commission before 20 January 2010.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs the Director of Education to ensure that the information about this mammoth investigation is provided to the appellant and the Commission by the appropriate officer. This investigation will indicate the number sittings of this committee and the progress of this inquiry. This will be send to the appellant and the Commission before 20 January 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 24 December 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) CC: Director of Education GNCTD, Directorate of Education, Old Secretariat, Delhi - 54