Central Information Commission
Mr.Tara Chand vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 29 June, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001476/19419
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001476
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Tara Chand
UDC, Ministry OF External Affairs
South Block, Room no. 28
New Delhi
Respondent Mr. Manish Chauhan
CPIO/Director Ministry of External Affairs A-2025, JNB, Janpath, New Delhi-110011 RTI application filled on : 04/11//2011 PIO replied : 22/11/2011 First appeal filed on : 16/12/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 04/01/2012 Second Appeal received on : 09/05/2012 The Appellant had sought information regarding the financial tip upgradation under the ACP Scheme.
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. Copy of order issued From the service records, it has been ascertained that you were not granted regarding the ACP of the any benefit under the old ACP Scheme; however you were given financial undersigned. tip gradation under the modified AC? Scheme wef 1.9.08.
2. Copy of order issued From the service records, it has been ascertained that you were not granted regarding the 2nd MACP any benefit under the old ACP Scheme; however you were given financial of the undersigned tip gradation under the modified AC? Scheme wef 1.9.08.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
PIO's reply is contradictory and hence unsatisfactory. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
FAA said that PIO's reply is satisfactory to my knowledge and information sought by appellant doen't come under the perview of RTI. Yet Appellant's request is being conveyed to the concerned authority in the Ministry for examination.
Grounds for the Second Appeal Unsatisfactory reply by PIO.Page 1 of 2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Tara Chand;
Respondent: Mr. Manish Chauhan, CPIO/Director; Mr. Sandeep Sood, US(RTI); Mr. Mahabir Singh Kasana (Advocate); Mr. Suneet Mehta, US;
The appellant has been provided information as per available records. The appellant states that he has been given a copy of the Second ACP but has not been given a copy of the First ACP. He wonders how the second can be generated without the first being generated. The PIO states that the first ACP is not on the records and has not been made. The PIO can only give information which is on record and cannot be asked to justify actions of the Public Authority if they are not on record. It appears that eh appellant has a grievance which has been recognized by the FAA and he will have to take this matter up with the appropriate forum.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records has been provided. 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 29 June 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SS) Page 2 of 2