- NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
- shows RTI
- RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
- 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
- The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
- Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
- Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
How do I send a registered notice to college principal asking for return of original documents? ( I am asking for the procedure in drafting a registered notice.)
Doraha, March 6
Pawan Kumar Kaushal, a retired headmaster, has been running from pillar to post since four and a half months to get information from the DEO(S) about his unwarranted pensionary benefit. He had sought information under the right to information (RTI) Act about his 6-month ad hoc service.
Kaushal says that his six-month ad hoc service had hitherto remained unaccounted for pension and pensionary benefits by the authorities concerned.
As per a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the service rendered should be counted for pension and pensionary benefits. The office of the secretary, department of school education, through a letter dated May 29, 2006, had asked the authorities, including the district education officers, to count the service of employees rendered on an ad hoc basis for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Kaushal said the AG, through a letter dated August 7, had asked the DEOs of Ludhiana to send his revised pension case after including the service rendered on an ad hoc basis. To know about the status of his case Kaushal had applied then for information under the RTI Act on October 12, but even after the expiry of the stipulated time period of 30 days, the information eluded him.
Kaushal had also informed the state information commissioner and the chief information commissioner about the callousness of DEO(S), demanding necessary action and an adequate reply.
On December 1, 2006 that the state information commission (IC) Punjab made it mandatory for the DEO(S) to provide information within 15 daysâ€™ time period but the latter took no pains to supply any such information to the former.
Ultimately, the state information commissioner fixed February 26, 2007, for hearing from the district education officer (S) or through an authorised representative, who should be well-conversant with the facts of the case but astonishingly the DEO(S) still paid no heed. Now the state information commissioner had issued a fresh notice of hearing to the DEO(S) the date for which has been fixed on be April 2, 2007.
The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Ludhiana Stories