One of my friends resigned from a PSU and they took nearly 2 years for his formal relieving & settlement of dues. He was a star performer there & they were reluctant to 'let him go'. Now, he has sought information regarding delay in disposing up his case. To this, the PIO has replied that 'reasons sought' can not be defined as 'information' under section 2(f) of RTI Act. Moreover, on asking for the list of reminders sent by him & the reasons for no reply, the PIO replied that 'the information sought is not specific as per section 2(f) of RTI Act'.
Can the RTI community enlighten us on this aspect please?
Many thanks for your responses. The organisation has already replied to our RTI application as indicated in my original query here. So, I think redrafting will be of little help now. The only thing left is going for an appeal.
Could you suggest something in that aspect please.
Can you please put up the original RTI application and the reply you received on the forum. This will help members to suggest the first appeal draft to you.
In case you so wish, you may blank out the names of the applicant and the Public Authority.
I am posting the original RTI application with reply alongwith a brief background. Hope this helps ! Thanks.
(1) The date on which the applicant submitted his resignation letter & the date of relieving from the services of ABC requested by him. Reply: Date of resignation – 7Mar06. Date of relieving sought – 17Mar06
(2) The date of ABC’s response to the resignation letter as mentioned at ‘a’ above. Please provide a copy of such response duly received by the applicant or PoD. Reply: Date of ABC’s response – 16Mar06. The reply was sent to the in-charge of local office for delivery to the applicant. ABC does not have a copy of such response duly received by the applicant or PoD.
(3) The details of the subsequent correspondence between the applicant & ABC viz. the full list of follow up letters forwarded to ABC by the applicant in this regard in chronological order and ABC’s responses to each such letter received from the applicant in the same order. Reply: Information sought is not specific as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
(4) Please also include the specific reasons for no response or delayed responses, if any, by ABC to the letters as mentioned at ‘c’ above, received from the applicant. Reply: No information furnished in view of reply to (c) above.
(5) The normal time taken by ABC to convey the acceptance of resignation from its employees. Reply: time taken by the ABC in conveying the acceptance of resignation is the notice period required to be given by the employee in terms of ABC Staff Rules.
(6) Please provide specific reasons for the time taken in conveying acceptance of resignation to the applicant vide letter ABC, No. 123456 dated May 25, 2007, which is over 14 months from the date of resignation letter submitted by the applicant to ABC. Reply: Reasons are being sought which cannot be defined as ‘information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
(7) Whereas the communication for relieving & final settlement of dues of the applicant was conveyed by ABC vide the letter dated May 25, 2007 as mentioned at ‘g’ above, please specify the reasons for further time taken in final settlement of dues which culminated in Jan 08, nearly after 8 months. Reply: Reasons are being sought which cannot be defined as ‘information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
To give a brief background – ABC is a small <ST1Central Govtorganization where the Chairman is everything & his ‘orders’ are treated as law irrespective of the prevalent policies & rules. The organization has taken every possible ‘negative’ measure to discourage resignations by young professionals. Under RTI, the applicant has already obtained the list of officers resigned upto two years before his resignation, which clearly shows that the officers have been relieved in the range of 1 day to 9 months from the date of their resignation, which entirely depends upon ‘right connections’, sometimes even without taking any ‘compensation for shortfall in notice period’.
Last edited by ganpat1956; 14-04-08 at 10:57 AM.
Reason: To enable easy comprehension
In the First Appeal, please argue that if PIO was not clear about Items 3,4 & 5 of your RTI Application, he could have asked for clarification or asked you to come and inspect the records/files.
Please ask for inspection of all relevant files, records, memos, etc. on this subject.
For items 6 & & you can argue in the First Appeal that since you are an "affected" party, you can ask for reasons under Sec 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Prefer an appeal before the 1 AA. Upon not getting satisfactory information as sought by you, you have a right prefer an appeal before the 2nd A.A i.e Hon'ble CIC, New Delhi. The Chief Executive of the Company shall fall in line with the provisions of RTI Act 2005, which is a very powerful tool in order to get the desired information from the P.A