Dear Experts,
I am struggling for release of my held up dues since 1993, but the DRM/NR/Lucknow, has been denying my dues. HE does not hesitate from filing FALSE AFFIDAVITS and FALSE AVERMENTS to continue the harassment.
I submitted representations to his Divl Personnel Officer, Addl DRM, and handed over to him personally as well. There were no replies. Filed an application under RTI Act to inspect the file dealing those representations. There was no reply. An appeal was filed before the AA, but there was no reply. I filed appeal before the Hon.ble Commission. There too the representatives of the DRM made FALSE AVERMENTS. The Hon'ble Commission was partially convinced, and passed orders (pl see attachment)
The Hon'ble commission, however has asked for explanation for not giving the information.
I want opinion as to what recourse is open to me for action against the PIO/NR/LKO, who made false averments.
Sorry! the file cud'nt b attached.
DECISION
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/000645
ORDER
Background
1. The Complainant, Shri Ramesh Chandra Nigam has come up to the Commission with a
complaint (dated 01.11.2010) that the Respondents have failed to comply with the Commission’s
directives dated 31.08.2010 in the above numbered case. Through this order, the RespondentPIO
was directed to furnish the information to the Applicant corresponding to his RTIapplication
dated 20.11.2009, keeping in view the provisions of Sections 8(1) and 9 of the RTIAct.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents stated that they have since, redressed the Complainant’s
grievance i.e. payment of certain retirement dues. They also made a mention of a reply dated
19.10.2010 through which the Complainant was informed that his matter would be dealt with by the
Personnel branch of the public authority. The Complainant, who was heard on phone, stated that he
had made representations to the public authority about certain heldup
payment of his
insurance claim, Provident Fund, Traveling Allowance, correction in date of retirement etc., and that
he has not received any reply from the public authority till date . The Respondents stated that they
had been making efforts to resolve the Complainant’s grievances and that finally they have been
able to manage to resolve the same and that they are not able to comprehend as to what ‘heldup
payment’ still remains to be paid to the Complainant.
3. From the submissions above, it is noted that all that the Complainant wants to know is the action
taken by the public authority on his representations, by which he had presented his
grievance (i.e. ‘heldup
payment’) before the public authority. The RespondentPIO,
however, failed to inform the same to him. It is, therefore directed that the PIO shall furnish a
precise reply to the Complainant in this regard by 10.06.2011. Nevertheless, in order to help the
Complainant, it is suggested that the Respondents may hold a personal hearing with the
Complainant in the presence of the officers concerned to sort out his grievance.
4. As regards deemed refusal to provide information in response to the Complainant’s RTIapplication,
it
is directed that the PIO shall show cause as to why a penalty under Section 20(1) should not
be imposed on him. Returnableby
10.06.2011.
5. The Complaint is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
