Sukhrani vs CPIO: Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
For the Appellant: None
For the Respondent: Deepak Kumar Dabral

Table of Content
1. appellant filed rti queries. (Para 1)
2. cpio's response rationale. (Para 2)
3. appeal and hearing process. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
4. commission's acknowledgment of appropriateness of cpio's response. (Para 7)
5. final decision to dismiss the appeal. (Para 8)

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. “Please provide copy of rule for encashment of Earned Leave on Resignation from the post before retirement.

2. please provide copy of our rules of resignation in KVS

3. who is the competent authority in KVS which can give wiave off to salary deposition after resignation

4. please provide copy of rule regarding salary deposition waive off condition in KVS on resignation.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:

“Query No. 1: Question/Queries/Reason/Explanation and Clarification are not covered under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 .

However, PIO is not supposed to create or interpret the information.

Moreover, applicant is informed that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is an autonomous body under Ministry of Education, the Government