PHOTOSTAT COPIES TO BE CERTIFIED BY THE CPIO AND HE SHOULD EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN GIVING THE INFORMATION

MR. SUKHDEV filed an RTI application dated 28.04.08 with the CPIO/Deptt of Posts, Jaipur, requesting for information against 3 points including photocopy of the IPO roster register, reasons for not announcing vacancy for SC, ST Post in IPO 2002-06. The Asstt. Director (Rectt. & Estt) replied on behalf of the CPMG, Rajasthan Circle on 19.3.08 providing information against the 3 points. The Applicant also received a letter from the CPIO dated 8.5.08 requesting the Applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 480/- for photocopying 240 pages of the roster register. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant herein filed a First Appeal before the Appellate Authority on 09.04.09 on the ground that the photocopied pages furnished to him are not certified and that information furnished against the remaining points is not correct. The First Appellate Authority replied on 12.05.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO and maintaining that information provided is correct. Being dissatisfied with the information provided by the Appellate Authority, the Appellant herein filed a Second Appeal before the CIC on 28.07.09.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing on 24th September, 2009. Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, ASP(Court), represented the CPIO of the Public Authority. The Applicant, Mr. Sukhdev, was present in person during the hearing.

Decision by the Commission

The Appellant stated that all information has been received by him and that he is satisfied with it. However he stated that the money for photocopying charges was deposited on 12.05.08 and the information was provided 1 year later. However the CPIO produced the letter dated 07.10.08 by which he had provided the required information along with the photocopy IPO roster register. The Commission after hearing both sides, directs the CPIO to showcause as to why a penalty of Rs. 250/- per day should not be imposed on him for not providing information on time even after having received the photocopying charges. The response to reach the Commission by 2 October, 2009. The CPIO to certify the information already provided to the Appellant. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.

CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/001134 DATED 24.9.2009

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 : 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