Central Information Commission
Tushar Kanti Sarkar vs Csir-Hrdg, New Delhi on 12 March, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: - CIC/CHRDG/A/2019/113874
CIC/CHRDG/A/2019/637030
In the matter of:
Tushar Kanti Sarkar
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Human Resource Development Group,
CSIR Complex, Library Avenue, Pusa,
New Delhi - 110012
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 18/11/2018 CPIO replied on : 25/01/2019 First appeal filed on : 23/01/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 19/02/2019 Second Appeal Filed on : 19/03/2019 Date of Hearing : 10/03/2021 Date of Decision : 10/03/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri S A Hasan, Senior Principal Scientist & CPIO and Shri N B Bhoi, Chief Scientist, present over VC.
Information Sought:
The appellant has stated that the CSIR-HRDG has stopped the fellowship of his son Sri Sankho Turjo Sarkar, JRF-SRF Fellow, CSIR-Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (CSIO), Chandigarh from 13/03/2015 indicating that his son has been getting JRF Fellowship with effect from 13/03/2010. In this connection, the appellant has sought the certified copy of the appointment letter as Junior 1 Research Fellow dated 13/03/2010, as per the earlier Order of CIC issued in File No. CIC/CSIOC/C/2017/603659.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 25.01.2019.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant through his RTI applications had raised a grievance with regard to non- continuation of his son's JRF-SRF fellowship in CSIR and wanted that necessary instructions may issued for its continuation. However, the CPIO apart from claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was very right in stating that since it is a grievance the RTI Act is not a platform to redress such grievances. It is brought to the notice of the appellant that the Commission is not an appropriate forum for raising such grievances as the core job of the Commission is to ensure that information is disseminated. Therefore, he is advised to approach the Grievance Redressal Cell of the organisation for settlement of his grievance.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
2
3