MODE OF PAYMENT THROUGH NON-JUDICIAL STAMP NOT APPLICABLE

Shri Shri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate, Badi Bazar, Kalluwada Lane PO – Munger, Thana – Kotwali filed an RTI application dt.3.1.09 with the CPIO, DoP, Bhagalpur seeking information against 18 points related to various post offices and employees in those offices and also requested for various Rules. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.9.2.09 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information. The Appellate Authority replied on 18.2.09 stating that the mode of payment through non-judicial stamp paper is not acceptable as per RTI Act and requested him to send the requisite fee through approved mode of payment as per the RTI Act. The Applicant filed a complaint dt.8.6.09 before the CIC.

The Commission upholds the decision of the Appellate Authority and advises the Complainant to file another RTI application with the requisite fee through the approved mode of payment under RTI Act. Complaint is dismissed.

CIC - DECISION NO CIC/AD/A/2009/000962 DATED 27.8.2009

PARTICULARS OF OFFICIALS PROMOTED TO GROUP 'B' CADRE ON ADHOC BASIS CAN BE SUPPLIED IF PARTICULARS ARE GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT

Shri K.B.Srivastava, Ex-Dy. Director, H.No.3/361 Vikas Nagar, Lucknow 226 022 filed an RTI application dt.13.2.08 with the CPIO, DoP, New Delhi seeking information against 4 points with respect to his promotion in P.S.S.Group B cadre. The CPIO replied on 24.3.08 stating that ad-hoc promotion is not a matter of right and ad-hoc promotion to PSS Group B cadre is done on circle level on the basis of availability of vacancy and one circle has no relation with other circle in this respect. She also enclosed the information regarding total vacancy of PS Group B officers and the date of holding DPC for the years 1995 to 2000. She also requested the Applicant to remit Rs.24/- towards supply of copies of Memos requested by him. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.24.4.08 with the Appellate Authority. On not receiving any reply, he filed a second appeal dt.30.6.08 before CIC.

The Respondent submitted to the CIC that the Applicant vide letter dt.24.4.08 addressed to DG, Department of Posts, deposited Rs.24/- towards supply of memos which were sent to him on 9.5.08 and no further communication was received by the CPIO from the Appellant after that. Only on receipt of the second appeal the Public Authority came to know that the Appellant had not received the information sent to him. The Respondent CPIO also shared with the Commission a copy of the Central Registry’s Diary showing date of dispatch of information to the Appellant. The Respondent further stated that ad-hoc promotion is done at circle level and there are 22 circles and one circle has no relation to another and in the absence of any register maintaining the details, the information could not be furnished. She further added that if the applicant requests for information about any particular employee / circle, then the same can be provided. The Appellant who was heard over the phone stated that his first appeal was not replied to by the Appellate Authority to which the Respondent CPIO replied stating that the first appeal was not received by them. The Applicant then complained that an employee of J & K circle who was junior to him has been given adhoc promotion since 1992 and has been subsequently regularized. In response, the Respondent informed the Appellant that the J&K circle being a small one, employees may get ad-hoc promotions quicker than in UP Circle.

The Commission after hearing both sides, directs the Appellant to provide name of any specific employee / circle so that information can be provided to him. The Commission accordingly directs the Appellant to provide the name/centre to the Respondent within 5 days of receipt of the order and the CPIO to provide the details to the Appellant within 10 days of receipt of details from the Appellant.

Comments. Nil.

CIC - DECISION NO CIC/AD/A/2009/000948 DATED 27.8.2009

APPLICANT : AVATAR SINGH CPIO: SR. SUPDT OF POST OFFICES, NEW DELHI SOUTH DIVISION

Information sought - Brief : Particulars of NSCs and KVPs issued in the name of the third party.

Information sought - Details : The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.28.3.08 with the CPIO, DoP, New Delhi in which he requested for information regarding NSCs and KVPs issued to Shri Sohan singh Sohan Pal or Shri Sohan Singh for the period Jan.1998 to Dec.2004 and value of NSC and KVP with their Nos. mean number of NSC and KVP and payment released on NSC and KVP with their amount at Jangpura PO New Delhi.

Action of the CPIO: The CPIO replied on 17.4.08 denying the information u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

Appeal to the 1st Authority :  Not satisfied the Applicant filed an appeal dt.29.4.08 with the Appellate Authority to which the Appellate Authority replied on 29.5.08 upholding the decision of the CPIO.

Appeal to the 2nd Authority (CIC) :Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.25.8.08 before CIC and CIC’s directed the CPIO to provide the information after obtaining the no objection letter from the applicant’s wife (nominee) vide letter dt.22.1.09.

Information sought again by the applicant : Still aggrieved, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.20.2.09 stating that information in regard of NSCs purchased in the year 2005 have not been mentioned. The Appellate Authority replied on 24.3.09 stating that information asked in the appeal is an additional matter which was not sought in the original application. Aggrieved at the denial, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.16.6.09 before CIC.

Decision of the Bench (Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner)
The Respondent submitted that information sought by the Appellant was for the period 1998 to 2004 and that the same has been provided . He stated that in his first appeal the Appellant had requested for information about KVPs maturing in the year 2005. He stated that information could not be provided since there was a difficulty in understanding what exactly the Appellant was seeking as information about KVPs and NSCs bought in 1999 and maturing in 2005 was already provided to the Appellant . He stated that the Appellant had come to the Commission requesting for information regarding the NSC which the Applicant thinks is existing with maturity value of Rs.20000 in the year 2005. He further added that on receipt of copy of the second appeal, the matter was further looked into and it was found that there was no NSC issued or matured in the year 2005. This information was conveyed to the Appellant during the hearing. The Respondent also added that he would be willing to provide a affidavit to this effect. The Applicant also stated that he would be satisfied with the Certificate.
Comments. Hello Avatar Singh ji, Be clear about the information you required from the Government.

CIC  -   DECISION NO CIC/AD/A/2009/000942 DATED 27.8.2009

Name of the Applicant : Ms.Yamini H.Mehta CPIO Supdt of Post Offices, Junagadh Division, Junagadh 362001

Information sought : The Applicant requested for information against 7 points with respect to the Postal Department Holiday Home at Somnath. The CPIO replied on 12.9.08 furnishing point wise information. Not satisfied, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.2.1.09 with the Appellate Authority stating that the information furnished by CPIO is totally wrong and far from truth. The Appellate Authority replied on 9.1.09 requesting the Applicant to send a copy of RTI application along with the reply of CPIO and why she feels the information provided is wrong so that it can be considered and information / documents can be sent to her. As per the Appellate Authority’s request the Applicant sent a reply on 15.1.09 along with the necessary information to which the CPIO replied on 29.1.09 providing additional clarification. Not satisfied, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.23.4.09 before CIC. Information given by the CPIO : Required information given to the applicant, but the applicant alleged that the informaiton is false and made an appeal. The applicant not satisfied with the reply of appellate authory also. Decision of the Bench (Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner) The Commission held that complete information has been furnished to the Appellant and appeal disposed. Comments. Hello Madam, Why you are unable to produce evidence that the information was incorrect? However, you have wasted the time of Appellate authority and the CIC. DECISION NO CIC/AD/A/2009/000621 DATED 26.8.2009

APPLICANT : SHRI DHRUBA CHARAN NAIK, GDS MC/PKR CPIO, SSP SUNDARGARH 769001

Information sought : The remarks/comments furnished by the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Dundargarh dated 8.8.2006 and 24.10.2006 in the case of GDS candidates for selection to the cadre of PA/SA for recruitment year 1995 and 1996. Information given by the CPIO : Not supplied Decision of the Bench (Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner) 1. The information sought for by the applicant should be provided before 26.9.2009 2. Issued show cause as to why a penalty of Rs 250/- per day (Maximum Rs 25,000) should not be levied for non supplying the information within the stipulated time. The response should reach the commission by 26.9.2009 Comments. Dear SSP Sir, Don't take any thing personal sir. Requesting you to supply the informatin immediately besides explaining the reasons to the CIC for delay. DECISION NO CIC/AD/A2009/000568 DATED 26.8.2009