Central Information Commission
P Arun vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 26 December, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi -110067
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Complaint No. CIC/NITTI/C/2016/302018
Complainant: P Arun
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer
National Institute of Technology, Tanjore Main
Road, Nattional Highway 67, Near BHEL Trichy,
Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu 620015.
Date of Hearing: 22.12.2017
Dated of Decision: 22.12.2017
ORDER
Facts:
1. The complainant filed RTI application dated 20.07.2016 seeking copy of promotion rules (REC norms and NIT norms) for teaching staff under CAS and non teaching staff under DPC in the institute etc.
2. The CPIO response is not on record. The first appeal is not on record. The response of FAA is not on record. The complainant filed complaint on
02.09.2016 before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him.
Hearing:
3. The complainant and the respondent Shri D. Selvan ( Prof. Mathematics) participated in the hearing through VC.
4. The complainant stated that the sought for information has not been provided to him. The complainant stated that he joined in 1997 as technical officer in the NITT. He had not been given any promotion, while his juniors have been promoted. The complainant stated that he had filed many RTI applications. The complainant further stated that this Commission vide order No. CIC/SA/C/2015/000254 had warned the respondent for not 1 replying to the RTI application in time. The complainant requested for imposition of penalty upon the respondent u/s 20 of the RTI Act.
5. The respondent stated that the complainant has been replied to vide letter dated 07.09.2016. On query from the Commission, the respondent read out the reply during the hearing. The respondent stated that the complainant was appointed as Hardware Engineer, which is a non teaching cadre post. Simply because the pay scales of complainant and lecturer are same, the complainant post cannot be treated a teaching staff. The promotion rules for teaching staff and non-teaching staff are entirely different.
6. The complainant stated that he has not received the said reply dated 07.09.2016.
Discussion/ observation:
7. The Commission observed that the reply given by the respondent is found to be satisfactory. However, there was a delay in reply to the RTI application.
Decision:
8. The respondent is directed to send another copy of his reply to the complainant.
9. The respondent is directed to show cause why action should not be taken against them for not giving reply in time as per RTI Act, within 30 days from receipt of this order.
The complaint is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar 2