Details of her pay and allowances given by RR Geeta Bal Bharti Public School, Delhi was denied holding that it is a private unaided school and hence not a Public Authority - CIC: refusal amounts to violation of Rule No.50 and No.180 of DSEAR, 1973
4 Mar, 2014Details of appellants pay and allowances given by RR Geeta Bal Bharti Public School, Delhi was denied holding that it is a private unaided school and hence not a Public Authority as defined in Section 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; - CIC: Respondent PIO to initiate necessary action for not furnishing information sought, as that refusal amounts to violation of Rule No.50 and No.180 of DSEAR, 1973 or initiate action in pursuance of show cause notice issued, because it is the legal obligation of the concerned school to comply with directions and furnish the information as directed by education department under RTI Act
FACTS
Heard today dated 31.1.14. Appellant represented by Shri Puneet Aggarwal. Public Authority is represented by Ms. Rashmi Gahlaut, PIO.
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dt.28.7.12 with the PIO, Education Dept., GNCTD seeking the following information:
i) Details of her pay and allowances given to her month wise since July 1994 till date. The details of allowances may be given separately for each allowance like HRA, DA, TA, Grade Pay or any other allowance.
ii) Also provide month wise deduction details that have been carried out from gross emoluments.
On not receiving any reply, Appellant filed an appeal dt.29.8.12 with the Appellate Authority reiterating her request for information. The Appellate Authority vide order dt.25.9.12 directed the PIO to provide the information within seven days. On not receiving any reply, the Appellant filed a second appeal dt.30.10.12 before CIC.
3. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that Shri L.M.Pandey, EO, Zone XII has intimated to her vide letter dt.15.9.12 that ‘but inspite of repeated telephonic message, the school authority not responded and subsequently a show cause notice to this effect was served to the manager vide no.190 dt.31.8.12. The manager of the said school in question has submitted reply vide No.944 dt.10.9.12 that ‘Smt Rajwanti Aggarwal has sought the detail of her pay and allowances since 1994 to till date more than 18 years old, the same is not available with the school and the school authorities are trying to locate the same and as and when the same is located, the required information shall be provided to Smt. Rajwanti Aggarwal’.
The Respondent Officer submitted that EO was asked vide letter dt.12.10.12 to convey to the Manager of the School that the reply dt.10.9.12 of the School was not acceptable and School should be asked to submit the complete details of the pay and allowance within 2 days without fail failing which the case will be referred to Act Branch, as per DSEAR 1973 for initiating necessary action against the school. The Manager of the school vide letter dated 5.11.12 submitted that ‘RR Geeta Bal Bharti Public School, Jalebi Chowk, Sultan Puri, Delhi is a private unaided school and therefore, the school is not a Public Authority as defined in Section 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; of the RTI Act. Thus, being a private entity it does not come under the purview of the act’.
The Respondent Officer submitted that vide letter dt.7.11.12, a show cause notice was issued to Shri L.M.Pandey, EO with the direction ‘to initiate the action against the defaulter school who is not providing the information as per DSEAR 1973 and send the complete case file to Act Branch and also explain the reasons for not sending the complete case file to Act branch for initiating action against the defaulter school.’ The Respondent Officer submitted that Appellant was appointed as Primary Teacher at RR Geeta Bal Bharti Public School on 4.7.1994. She was relieved from duty on 5.6.12 signed by the officiating Vice Principal. The Appellant had approached the Tribunal (DST) to set aside the relieving order. The officer submitted that the next date of hearing is 14.7.2014. The Respondent officer also submitted that Hon’ble High Court vide WPC No.435/13 dt.23.4.13 ordered that Appellant’s salary and all the dues should be paid in terms of the 6th Pay Commission report but the concerned school has not complied the Court order so far. The Clauses (xviii) and (xix) of Rule 50 of DSEAR, 1973 is reproduced below:
“Rule 50: Conditions for recognition - No private school shall be recognized, or continue to be recognized, by the appropriate authority unless the school fulfills the following conditions, namely: (xviii) the school furnishes such reports and information as may be required by the Director from time to time and complies with such instructions of the appropriate authority or the Director as may be issued to secure the continued fulfillment of the condition of recognition or the removal of deficiencies in the working of the school; (xix) all records of the school are open to inspection by any officer authorized by the Director or the appropriate authority at any time, and the school furnishes such information as may be necessary to enable the Central Government or the Administrator to discharge its or his obligations to Parliament or to the Metropolitan Council of Delhi, as the case may be.”
Rule 180 of DSEAR, 1973 is reproduced below:
(i) Every unaided recognized private school shall submit returns and documents in accordance with Appendix II.
(ii) Every return or document referred to in subrule (i) shall be submitted to the Director by the 31st day of July of each year.
(iii) The account and other records maintained by the unaided private school shall be subject to the examination by the auditors and inspecting officers authorized by the Director in this behalf and also by any officers authorized by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
The Appellant’s son submitted that her mother was given several papers and was asked to sign and she had signed the papers in trust and good faith and one of the papers was used to relieve her from duty. When queried by the Commission whether the Appellant had signed any blank papers, the representative was unable to answer.
4. The Commission recommends the Respondent PIO to initiate necessary action for not furnishing information sought, as that refusal amounts to violation of Rule No.50 and No.180 of DSEAR, 1973 (referred above) or initiate action in pursuance of show cause notice issued by your office, because it is the legal obligation of the concerned school to comply with directions and furnish the information as directed by Respondent under RTI Act. The Commission directs the PIO to collect the information from the school and furnish the same to the Respondent within a month from the receipt of this order.
5. The appeal is disposed with the above direction.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Rajwanti Aggarwal Vs. Education Dept., GNCTD in File No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003590SA