No body has taken care to provide information even after an appeal before state chief information commissioner gujarat state

[rasilabenjoshi]

RASILABEN JOSHI to gscic
show details 10:01 AM (10 hours ago) Reply

From: RASILABEN JOSHI
Date: Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Subject: Immediate requirement of Information under RTI under clause of matter relating to life and liberty
To: gscic@gujarat.gov.in

To
Chief Information Commissioner,
Office of the Cheif Information Commissioner,
Sector-18, gandhinagar

Sub: Information required under Right to Information Act-2005 under clause of MATTER RELATING TO LIFE AND LIBERTY
Ref: Complain lodged by me on Dt.4th August,2008 for want of information of my HUSBANDS CASE BEFORE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT SCA-12112 JUDGEMENT DT.29-10-2004 nobody is replying my matter even after application made before the authority under RTI

I the under signed has sent an application along with fee charges of Rs.20 by ICICI Bank demand draft before the authority concerned and prayed to provide information of my HUSBANDS CASE BEFORE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT SCA-12112 JUDGEMENT DT.29-10-2004 nobody is replying my matter even after application made before the authority under RTI and subsequent APPEAL before you by e-mail and also copy sent by post.
I am an OLD AGED POOR WIDOW UNABLE TO VISIT YOUR offices wants information relating to (1) DELAY AND LETCHES CAUSED BY WHOM (2) NAME, ADDRESS, DESIGNATION AND OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF GAZZETIER BY WHOM THEY ARE CALLED GAZZETTED OFFICER to take disciplinary action.
This is very difficult to fix the responsibility of official's who has made delay and letches. I want the list of office bearer who holds the office my husband during his whole service period and after retirement till today, to initiate action against "inaction and sadness towards my late husbands TOTALLY GENUEIN AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEMAND proved after his death.
Now you are requiested to order for immediate supply of information considering this matter under clause "MATTER RELATING TO LIFE AND LIBERTY" as I am poor widow of 76 yr. old and unable to goanywhere due to my old age, which is the sufficient evidence to prove my case before you.
Thanking you.

Yours faithfully,

Rasilaben Shantilal Joshi
Widow of Lt.Shantilal Ratilal Joshi
Bhalka Tirth Veraval - Prabhaspatan Road,
Veraval Somnath













fromRASILABEN JOSHI
togscic@gujarat.gov.in
dateWed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:41 PM
subjectNon-availability of Information - Complain before CIC
From: Rasilaben Shantilal Joshi
Widow of Lt. Shantilal Ratilal Joshi,
Present Address for Communication:
Sharat Ratilal Joshi's House,
3, Akta Nagar, Nr. Khodiyar Temple,
Bhalka Veraval Dist.Junagadh

To
Chief Information Commissioner,
Gujarat Information Commission,
Sector-18, Gandhinagar-18

I am unable to approach you personnally due to my old age of 76 yr. or more and want to admitt an appeal before you for want of information under rti clause matters relating to life and liberty.
I am regularly reminding the authority concerned but no body has taken care to reply my representation along with the copy of high court judgement given in sca/12112/1994 oral judgement given by high court judge Mr. Anant Dave on Dt.29-10-04.
I pray before you for want of information on JUS NECESSITE ground on HUMANITY as ealy as possible.
Thanking you.
yours faithfully,

Smt. Rasilaben S. Joshi
Widow of Lt.Shantilal Ratilal Joshi









Dt.5th Aug.2008

To
Chief Information Commissioner,
Gujarat Information Commission,
Sector-18, Gandhinagar-18

Sub: Non-availability of information required even after high court of gujarat order SCA-12112 of 1994 oral order Dt.4th Oct.2004

Sir,

I the under signed is 76 yr. old widow unable to visit any office of govt. want information stated below.The detail of my case is given below:
(1) My husband lost one eye during his sevice as VACCINATOR IN HEALTH DEPARTMENT at camp of vaccination arranged at TALALA VILLAGE on dt.4-12-75
(2) He has applied for compensation and conveyance allowance on Dt.5-1-1979 but no body has taken care.
(3) He has applied for higher pay scale but no body has taken interest till his retirement dt.30-11-87
(4) Applied before High Court of Gujarat vide SCA-12112-1994 on dt.11-07-95 and oral judgement is given on dt.4-10-04 after passing of 12 year, but nobody has informed me about my favourable judgement.
(5) I had tried my level best to officials of high court to inform me the result of SCA but nobody has taken interest.
(6) One unknown person has suggested to open website of gujarat high court and according to instruction I had made contect of CYBER CAFFE but often server is failed to open the case status position of my husbands case.
(7) After so many attempt failed to open the pages of order - but after so many attempt and 30 minite waiting to open the pages before the broad band network of BSNL the page is opened and I am surprised to know that my husband SCA oral judgement is in his favour.
Now I had applied before the officials of Govt. of Gujarat, for information under RTI on dt.4-08-08 by payment of Rs.20 by DD no.004736 dt.4-08-08 for want of information within 72 hrs as this is the case of life and liberty, I fell ill and due to my old age, eager for death want the said information as early as possible withn 72 hrs. but nobody has taken care.
(8) Now I have no any alternative. I prefer to apply before you. I had posted my application to (1) Secretary, Ministry of Health, Gandhinagar (2) Directorate of Health, Gandhinagar I3) DDO, Junagadh (4) DHO junagadh (5) Development Commissioner Gandhinagar on Dt.4th Aug.2008 but nobody has taken care to reply my latter along with oral order of SCA-12112-1994 Oral Judgement Dt.4-10-03.
I attach the copy of oral judgement for your consideration by copy paste to broadband internate as below:

================================================== ==========
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO
to see the judgements?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO
of the judgement?

4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO
Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals?

--------------------------------------------------------------
SHANTILAL RATILAL JOSHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. Special Civil Application No. 12112 of 1994
MR NILESH A PANDYA for Petitioner No. 1
MR DA BAMBHANIA for Respondent No. 1-2
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT S DAVE
Date of decision: 29/10/2004
ORAL JUDGEMENT

#. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India claims benefit of higher pay-scale which is not
granted to the petitioner, though eligible as per
relevant Circulars as relied on by the petitioner in this
petition and further to issue appropriate, Writ, order or
direction to respondent-authority to grant special
allowance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.50/= per
month or 10% of the basic pay, as per Resolution dated
5.1.1979 from the date of his accident, i.e. 4.12.1975
till retirement, i.e. 30.11.1987.

#. It is the case of petitioner that the petitioner
joined the services of the respondents as Vaccinator on
1.1.1964 and on 4.12.1975, when the petitioner was on
duty at the health camp at Talala Village, some lime
powder fell into his eyes, therefore, the petitioner was
immediately admitted to the hospital and subsequently,
his right eye was operated and totally removed by the
doctors. The petitioner has further stated that he was
hospitalized for more than 18 months as indoor patient
and was advised to take rest for 6 months and therefore
as per Resolution dated 5.1.1979, the petitioner is
entitled to have the benefit of conveyance allowance of
10% of his basic pay subject to a maximum of Rs.50/= per
month.

The petitioner has also submitted that at
relevant point of time, he was not given the higher
pay-scale inspite of repeated representations and
therefore, the petitioner is left with no alternative but
to prefer this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India against such inaction and apathy
shown by respondents to the petitioner while not granting
the benefits under the Resolutions by the
respondent-authority.

#. This petition was admitted by this court on 11.7.1995
and Rule was made returnable on 18.12.1995. It is
pertinent to note that the respondent-authority has
chosen not to file any affidavit-in-reply or no
contentions have been raised by the learned Assistant
Government Pleader justifying denial of benefits under
this Resolution as annexed by petitioner at Annexure-A to
the petition dated 5.1.1979 passed by the Finance
Department, Government of Gujarat.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader has
submitted that there is no instruction with regard to the
subject matter of the petition.

#. From the record of the petition and annexures annexed
thereto, it cannot be said that the grievances of the
petitioner are not justified or well founded. So far as
grant of higher pay-scale to the petitioner is concerned,
Annexure-B is the letter written by the District Health
Officer, Junagadh, on 11.1.1993 to the petitioner, which
states that confidential reports of the petitioner were
not available and Primary Health Center, Delwada, was
instructed to supply such remarks and thereafter,
appropriate action will be taken. So far as Annexure-C
to the petition is concerned, it is a letter written by
the Primary Health Center, Delwada on 23.4.1993 to
District Health Officer, Junagadh, which states that
since the petitioner was serving earlier at Patan,
relevant records have not been verified and non payment
certificate is also not available and the office at Patan
is responsible to pay to the petitioner and it further
states that the confidential record of the petitioner is
not available and therefore appropriate action be taken.

#. The correspondence at Annexures-B and C to the
petitioner by District Health Officer, Junagadh and
Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Delwada, and vice
versa, clearly reflect the inaction on the part of the
authorities for not granting higher pay scale to the
petitioner. The petitioner cannot be held responsible
for non verification of his service record or non
availability of the confidential records or his service
book, as the case may be.

So far as the benefit of Resolution dated
5.1.1979 of the Finance Department with regard to payment
of conveyance allowance of 10% of basic pay subject to a
maximum of Rs.50/= per month is concerned, it is on the
basis of certain conditions to be fulfilled. It is also
mentioned that in case of blind employees, the allowance
will be admissible on the recommendations of the Head of
Opthalmological Department of the Government Civil
Hospital. That inspite of repeated representations on
behalf of the petitioner, the authority has not taken any
decision till the petitioner retired from services in the
year 1987. Similarly, no decision is taken with regard
to grant of higher pay-scale to the petitioner by
respondent-authority and from the correspondence at
Annexures-B and C to the petition, it appears that nobody
is ready to take any responsibility with regard to grant
of said higher pay-scale.

#. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case
and in the interest of justice, it would be just and
proper to direct the respondent-authority to decide the
case of the petitioner for grant of higher pay-scale to
the petitioner which may have been available to the
petitioner at relevant point of time, as stated by
petitioner, within three months from the date of receipt
of Writ of this order, on the basis of relevant
Government Resolutions in this regard and if the
petitioner is found eligible to receive higher pay-scale,
same may be granted and difference of salary and other
allowances already received by the petitioner and that of
higher pay-scale that may be available to the petitioner,
be paid thereafter within one month from the date of
decision of the authority.

With regard to claim of petitioner for conveyance
allowance as per the Government Resolution dated
5.1.1979, same may also be decided by the
respondent-authority as early as possible, preferably
within three months from the date of receipt of writ of
this order, keeping in mind the fact that the petitieonr
has incurred this disability while the petitioner was
performing his duty on 4.12.1975 at the Health Camp at
Talala village and his right eye was completely removed
and was treated as indoor patient for 18 months and
advised to take rest for 6 months by the doctors.

#. With the above observations and directions, no
further order is required to be passed. Rule is made
absolute in terms aforesaid with no order as to costs.



(ANANT S.DAVE, J.)

(sunil)


...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD.doc SRG DT.29-10-08.doc

[wehelp]

Mrs. rasilabenjoshi
could u please mention the authority with whom u made RTI application
under section 6 (1)

[kushal]

Kindly do not start discussions in the wrong Forum, it increases our job more. It is also requested that if a new member posts in the wrong forum, the regular members should desist from continuing it.

Thank You!

Closing this thread posted at New member introduction.