Central Information Commission
Mrujjwala S Chaskar vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 29 March, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/CC/A/2015/004131
Date of Hearing : 09.03.2016
Date of Decision : 29.03.2016
Appellant/Complainant : Ms. Ujjwala C Chaskar
Mumbai
Respondent : Tata Memorial Hospital
Mumbai
Through:
Dr. Venkata, PIO
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.02.2015
PIO replied on : 11.03.2015
First Appeal filed on : 31.03.2015
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : 24.04.2015
Second Appeal/complaint received on : 26.05.2015
Information sought:
The appellant sought her final ACR/APAR grading for the period 2008 to 2015 along with benchmark in ACR/APAR/norms for promotion from Nurse (A) to Nurse (B). Background of the case:
Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.02.2015 seeking the above information. CPIO vide letter dated 11.03.2015 provided point wise reply to the appellant. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, appellant filed first appeal. The FAA in his order upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present and heard through video conferencing. The appellant stated that information on query 2 of the RTI application has not been provided. She stated that her ACR/APAR gradings have not been communicated to her because of which her promotion has been delayed. She further stated that she has the signature of 100 girls who claims that their ACR/APAR gradings has not been communicated to them. The respondent stated that the Director of their institute has shown ACR/APAR gradings to everyone but copies of the same could not be given and case in this regard is pending for adjudication before the hon'ble Bombay High Court.
Decision:
After hearing parties and on perusal of record, the Commission rejects the plea of the respondent authority and directs the CPIO to furnish information on point 2 of the RTI application to the appellant, within 2 weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(V.D. Naniwadekar) Designated Officer