When an RTI applicant asked for the Service book of Postal Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) employees, he got the response that there is no service book maintained for the GDS employees. The CPIO informed that “no service book is maintained for GDS as they are part time workers”, although the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that Gramin Dak Sevaks are holders of civil post outside the regular civil service. As per the Government rules, there is no parity in terms and conditions of employment between the Central Government regular employees and Gramin Dak Sevaks.
The Government treats Gramin Dak Sevaks and regular employees of the Government to two distinct and separate groups. Whereas Government employee works for 8 hours, Gramin Dak Sevak work on a part time basis ranging from three hours to five hours per day and are discharged after attaining 65 years of age. If you have any questions, you can post it over our forums here! Read more ›
While hearing the second appeal, Central Information Commission observed that “Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions the exception“. The information can be denied only if it is exempt as per the provisions of Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act. Further, while denying information the authority withholding the information must show satisfactory reasons and such reason should be germane and based on some material. Sans this consideration the information cannot be denied.
The CPIO & Asstt. Postmaster General (Staff), Department of Posts O/o the Postmaster General, Chennai City Region,Chennai – stated that the information requested by the appellant (i.e. copy(s) of letter declining promotion by the concerned officers) is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. To a query as to how the release of the information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, he was unable to give any reasoned justification.
CIC recorded that “In the instant case the CPIO has been unable to show any satisfactory reasons for withholding the information. Thus, there is no
legitimate ground for not releasing the information. Hence, the CPIO is directed to furnish the information as above to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.” Read more ›
RTI reply through Registered Post AD or Speed Post is what the Central Information Commission and State Information Commission has been insisting. The reply through ordinary mail should not be resorted too. Neither there should be compulsion to RTI Applicant to collect the information from the Public Offices.
In the recent order by Karnataka Information Commission, in the case “Sri M. S. Kumaraswamy vs. PIO & Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP, Whitefield Sub-division, Bangalore”, noted that “the Respondent has now provided the information which has been handed over to the unauthorized person without obtaining the acknowledgement. Commission noted that in several instances the officers and officials of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike have handed over the information to the unauthorized persons other than the applicants or to the authorized persons. Further, the Commission has already stated that there is no need to applicants to go over to the Government offices and the Public Information Officer / public authority should send the information either through the speed post or RPAD. This should be scrupulously followed.” Read more ›