Date of Hearing : 13.04.2022
Date of Decision : 13.04.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.03.2020 PIO replied on : -
First Appeal filed on : 01.04.2020 First Appellate Order on : 08.05.2020 2ndAppeal/complaint dated : 22.05.2020
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.03.2020 seeking certified copy of the order related to cash compensation given in lieu of work done on holidays/Saturday/Sunday by non gazetted staff of Intelligence Bureau/Research and Analysis Wing(RAW).
The PIO/Under Secretary vide letter dated 20.03.2020 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO/Dy. Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat (SR). Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.04.2020 and the same was transferred to the FAA/Director, Cabinet Secretariat (SR).
The FAA/Director, Cabinet Secretariat (SR) vide order dated 08.05.2020 held as under:-
Page 1 of 3
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal, citing the decision in the case of CPIO, IB vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi passed by the Delhi High Court.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat vide letter dated 07.04.2022, relevant portion whereof is as under:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present for the hearing, while the Appellant has not attended the hearing despite service of hearing notice in advance nor has he submitted any submissions to buttress his case.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case, the Commission finds the reply of the Respondent satisfactory particularly in view of the fact that the Appellant has not mentioned any allegations of corruption or violation of human rights, in the
Page 2 of 3
case at hand, unlike in the Delhi High Court case cited by him in the Second Appeal. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress his case despite service of hearing notice in advance.
Under these circumstances, the Commission finds no reason for intervention in this case.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. केेे े . िसहा)
Chief Information Commissioner (मुुुु य सूूूचू ना आयुुुु) Authenticated true copy
(अिभमािणत स ािपत ित)
S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. िचटकारा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535
Page 3 of 3