केन्द्रीयसचू नाआयोग Central Information Commission बाबागगं नाथमाग,ग मनु नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नईदिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/MDIYO/C/2024/606234 Shri Keshav Sachdev निकायतकताग /Complainant VERSUS/बनाम PIO, …प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent Morarji Desai Institute of Yoga.

Date of Hearing : 20.03.2025 Date of Decision : 20.03.2025 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on : 12.12.2023 PIO replied on : 12.01.2024 First Appeal filed on : 12.01.2024 First Appellate Order on : 08.02.2024 2^ndAppeal/complaint received on : 15.02.2024 Information sought and background of the case:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.12.2023 seeking information on following points:-

“1. Provide the recruitment rules for the position of Telephone Operator cum Receptionist.

2. Provide the recruitment rules for the position of Storekeeper.

3. Provide the recruitment rules for the position of Cashier.

4. Provide the recruitment rules for the position of Caretaker.

5. Provide the organizational structure of MDNIY, indicating which employees come under which officer.

6. Provide the hierarchy chart of the organization.

7. Clarify whether MDNIY follows the rules and regulations of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).

8. whether MDNIY adheres to the general orders of the Ministry of Finance issued for all ministries/organizations.

9. whether MDNIY adheres to the general orders of the Department of Expenditure issued for all ministries/organizations.

10. whether MDNIY followed Office Memorandum No. 7/24/2007/E III (A) dated 17.10.2023 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, if YES please provide order and if NO then please provide under which rule this O.M is not followed by this department.”

The CPIO, Morarji Desai Institute of Yoga vide letter dated 12.01.2024 replied as under:-

“As per the RTI Act, 2005, the cost of providing photocopies of requisite documents i.e. total number of pages 06 (@ Rs.2 per page) may be submitted through a pay order in the favour of MDNIY towards the supply of the requisite documents.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.01.2024. The FAA vide order dated 08.02.2024 stated as under:-

“2. Whereas the said RTI was disposed of by the CPIO, MDNIY vide his Order dated 12.1.2024 directing Shri Keshav Sachdev to submit 12/- (6 pages x Rs.2/- per page =Rs.12/- only) through a pay order in favour of MDNIY for photocopying the documents to supply the requisite information.

3. Whereas, instead of complying with the above mentioned Order dated 12.1.2024 of the CPIO, MDNIY, Shri Keshav Sachdev submitted First Appeal Registration No. MDIYO/A/E/24/00001 dated 12.1.2024.

4. Whereas as per the provisions of Section 7(3)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Order dated 12.1.2024 of the CPIO, MDNIY is reasonable and clear but the Appellant has not complied with it.

5. Therefore, the Appeal dated 12.01.2024 of Shri Keshav Sachdev is rejected with the direction to comply with the Order dated 12.01.2024 of the CPIO, MDNIY.”

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Complainant: Present Respondent: Shri Mudit Sharma, AO The Appellant submitted that despite of making the payment of Rs 12 as requested by the CPIO, no information has been provided by the CPIO.

The CPIO submitted that as per the records, the Cash section of the department had not informed the concerned CPIO about the receipt of the payment as a result of which the information could not be provided to the Appellant. It was further submitted that the delay in providing the information was not intentional on the part of the CPIO.

The CPIO submitted that information sought by the Appellant shall be provided to the Appellant.

The Commission during the hearing noticed that information sought at Point No. 7 to 10 is clar