Appellant: casual sweeper at post office is employed for half hour whereas he is working for 2 hours; incorrect information provided - PIO: information as per record has been furnished - CIC: RTI Act is not the proper forum for redressal of grievance
1- Name of the sweeper who has been appointed after the death of Late Ms. Raj Kumari Devi died on 20/08/2006.
2- Provide the detail of the different type of services that are being taken from the said sweeper?
3- Detail of the time at which sweepers start working every day?
4- Details of remuneration being paid to the sweeper, what is the provision relating to it, whether the payment is being made as per the provision.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The information was not received.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Purushottam Shah through VC
Respondent: Mr. Amresh Kumar CPIO’s representative through VC
The appellant stated that the respondent have advised him that the casual sweeper employed at Shahpur Kamal post office is working for half - hour whereas actually he is working for two hours. The CPIO’s representative explained that the regular sweeper employed at Shahpur Kamal post office had passed away and her son was engaged as a contingent paid sweeper and as per the instructions of the Competent authority he is paid an amount of Rs. 277/- PM for half-hour of duty per day. The appellant argued that the person engaged was actually working for two hours and the correct information has not been provided. The CPIO’s representative contended that the information, as available on record, has been furnished and if the appellant has any grievance regarding the working hours of the contingent sweeper the matter has to be contested before the Competent authority/appropriate forum and not under the RTI Act. He emphasized that there is no document on record which indicates that the contingent sweeper is working for two hours.
The RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes and there are other appropriate forum(s) for resolving such matters. The information, as available on record, has been provided. The matter is closed.
Citation: Mr. Purushottam Shah v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001539/3603