Back
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
P R Ramesh, Commissioner
Rajnish Ratnakar – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Ministry of Women & Child Development – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rti queries on appointments and liabilities rejected under section 2(f) (Para 1) |
| 2. rti on pgo compliance with ncte norms not creatable (Para 2) |
| 3. no law degree info for faa available under cpio jurisdiction (Para 3) |
| 4. cvo complaint info transferred under section 6(3) (Para 4) |
| 5. labour ministry judgments outside mowcd purview (Para 5) |
| 6. maniben judgment applies to states, not central directive (Para 6) |
| 7. court judgments interpretation not cpio's purview (Para 7) |
| 8. judgment implementation duties not record-based info (Para 8) |
| 9. legal opinions fiduciary, not disclosable (Para 9) |
| 10. anganwadi honorary status limits gratuity liability (Para 10) |
| 11. anganwadi workers honorary, gratuity state-directed (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 12. rti limited to existing records, no inferences (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 13. rti misuse admonished, appeals dismissed (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/MOWCD/A/2024/635389
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Whether Ms Jyotika Has Been Appointed Pgo In My Public Grievance After Receiving Of My Two RTI Application, Bearing Registration Number Mowcd/R/E/23/01204 And Mowc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
