Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: GFR in Shailen Karmakar vs Department Of Expenditure on 1 September, 2021Matching Fragments
(31.08.2021)
1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 21.02.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated10.11.2018 and first appeal dated 12.12.2018:-
(i) Name and designation of the officer who had exercised power on behalf of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure under the Rule 254 of GFR, 2005 in the case of my posting against the vacant STS post, CBDT, Kolkata vide Order No. A 32013/8/2012/Gr. A/265-276 dated 12.02.2013, since, as per the Rule 254 of GFR, 2005, only the Ministry of Department having the appointing power of both the lower and higher cadre posts could operate the Rule.
(ii) To provide the photocopy of the complete set of the documents/note sheets on which the Officer mentioned at Sr. No. 1 above accorded his approval the Rule 254 of GFR, 2005, in the case of my posting against the vacant STS Post, CBDT, Kolkata vide Order No. A 32013/8/2012/Gr. A/265-276 dated 12.02.2013.
(iii) (i) Number (how many) of cases, with the names of the officers (ACAs), in which the ACAs (JTS) level officers) have been posted against the higher post in terms of Rule 254 of GFR, 2005 (Edition 2010) from 01.01.2010 to 31.01.2014.
(ii) Certified photocopy of the posting orders of such cases mentioned at Sl. No.
(iii) (i) above.
(iii) Certified photocopy of the complete set of note sheets of Group A Section, O/o the CGA on which the CGA and the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure approved such postings explicitly in terms of the Rule 254 of GFR, 2005 during the period 2012 and 2013.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 10.11.2018under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Expenditure, O/o Controller General of Accounts, INA Colony, New Delhi,seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 10.12.2018. Dissatisfiedwith the response of the CPIO, the appellant has filed first appeal dated12.12.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the first appeal vide its order dated 09.01.2019. Aggrieved by that, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 21.02.2019before this Commission which is under consideration.