Appellant: the reason for not being given promotion was sought - Respondent: the appellant did not have the mandatory service requirement for promotion; his case was dismissed by the CAT in Delhi bench - CIC: allow the inspection of the relevant files
1. The appellant filed an application dated 05.01.2012 under the RTI Act, seeking information regarding the reason for not giving promotion. CPIO responded on 09.02.2012. Appellant filed first appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 05.03.2012. FAA vide order dated 10.04.2012 provided further information to the appellant. Appellant filed this present second appeal on 09.05.2012.
2. Respondent was present before the Commission.
3. Respondent referred to the RTI application of the appellant and stated that the appellant was seeking information regarding the reason for not being given promotion.
4. Respondent stated that the appellant was presently working with the respondent organization and posted at Kolkata. Respondent stated that the appellant was not promoted because he did not have the mandatory service requirement for promotion.
5. Respondent stated that the appellant filed a case before the CAT in Delhi bench but it was dismissed by the CAT. Respondent stated that now the appellant has filed another case before the CAT at Kolkata bench and it is pending.
6. Respondent stated that they have provided pointwise information to the appellant. It was stated that the appellant was allowed inspection of the relevant files by the FAA. Respondent stated that they had no intention to withhold any information from the appellant.
7. Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
8. Respondent is directed to enable the appellant, within 30 days of this order, to inspect the relevant files as per the RTI application. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Ramesh Chhabra v. RITES Ltd. In Decision No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003096/VS/06144