Central Information Commission
Mr.D L Nandeshwar vs Ministry Of Environment And Forests on 31 January, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001706
Date of Hearing : January 31, 2011
Date of Decision : January 31, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Dr.D.L.Nandeshwar
10B, Nilgiri1
Sector34
Noida 201 307
Uttar Pradesh
The Applicant was present along with Shri Hemant Jain during the hearing.
Respondents
Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education
P.O. New Forest
Dehradun 248 006
Represented by : Shri V.B.Jackurla, Head Clerk on behalf of CPIO and Shri s.Senthil Kumar, DCF
on behalf of Appellate Authority
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001706
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.17.4.09 with the PIO, ICFRE, Dehradun seeking the following information:
i) Supply the copy of the rules related to granting lien in ICFRE with all the amendments so far.
ii) Supply the details of circumstances under which he has not been granted lien and his counterparts had been granted.
iii) Supply the details of the Scientists in ICFRE who have left the service and granted/non granted lien since 1998.
iv) Supply the copy of the rules for granting deputation to the Scientists in ICFRE and list of Scientists have so far applied and granted deputation since 1998.
2. Shri Sudhanshu Gupta, PIO replied on 9.7.09. With regard to point (ii) he stated that the Applicant had not submitted necessary 'undertaking' in the prescribed proforma for retention of lien in ICFRE, whereas his counterparts had submitted the same for retaining lien. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.29.10.09 with the Appellate Authority stating that at no point of time, he was asked to fill any proforma or to give any undertaking by the ICFRE or the CFRHRD, Chindwara for granting him lien and pension. He added that he was refused the lien and was asked to resign from the service of ICFE vide letter dt.11.9.09 whereas his counterparts have been granted the lien and pension as per govt. rules. He requested the Appellate Authority to look into the matter to issue necessary instructions to rectify the records to grant him the lien and pension as per govt. rules. Shri Sudhanshu Gupta, Secretary replied on 9.1.10 stating that in the case of permanent employee, lien may be retained in the parent department for a period of two years and that the employee should either revert to the parent department within that period or resign from the parent department at the end of that period. Further, either the employee or his new department requires to pay the leave salary and pension contribution for the retention period of lien to parent department. The employee has to furnish an undertaking to abide by these conditions at the time of forwarding the application to other department. He further added that the Applicant had never intimated that retention of lien in ICFRE is the requirement of the Company as laid down in the Advertisement. He further added that Applicant's request for retention of lien for two years was not acceded to by the Competent Authority. Thereafter the Applicant submitted technical resignation from the post of ScientistC which was accepted by DG;ICFRE to enable the Applicant to join new assignment as Dy.Manager (Forestry) in NTPC Ltd., Noida. As such the information supplied is based on the provision existing under the rules. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.17.9.10 before CIC.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that all he wants is the rule under which he was expected to give an undertaking for grant of lien . It was the Appellant's contention that no such rule exists. He also complained that no one had ever asked him to submit such an undertaking. The Respondent on his part was not able to affirm the fact that the rule does exist. The Commission on inspection of a rule already provided to the Appellant by the Respondents noted that there was no reference to the undertaking in the rule and hence holds that the rule does not adequately answer the Appellant's query. Accordingly the undersigned with the powers vested in her under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act, directs the Appellate Authority to enquire into this matter and to provide an enquiry report to the Appellant as also information on action taken based on the outcome of the report. The Appellate Authority may also hold a personal hearing with the Appellant to provide the required clarification. The entire exercise to be completed by 10.3.11 and the Appellant to submit a compliance report by 15.3.11.
3. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Dr.D.L.Nandeshwar 10B, Nilgiri1 Sector34 Noida 201 307 Uttar Pradesh
2. The Public Information Officer Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education P.O. New Forest Dehradun 248 006
3. The Appellate Authority Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education P.O. New Forest Dehradun 248 006
4. Officer Incharge, NIC