Like our Facebook Page

news details

Constable alleges scam in IRP, info denied under RTI Gazetted officers posted in rural area draw 20 % HRA! 10/7/2015 11:12:30 PM Early Times Report Srinagar, Oct 7: A selection grade constable posted with IRP 12 BN at Mattan Anantnag has alleged that some gazetted officers posted at Parihaspura Pattan IRP 3rd Battalion have been drawing 20 % House Rent Allowance (HRA) which is actually meant for Govt officials posted in municipal limits of Srinagar and Jammu. The constable used his Right under J&K RTI Act and sought the details from the office of the Commandant IRP 3rd BN , but the information was not provided to him by the Public Information Officer (PIO) who invoked security reasons for the same. The case finally landed in State Information Commission (SIC) which upheld orders of PIO partially but directed him to provide some details under J&K RTI Act 2009. Details available with Early Times reveal that Selection Grade constable Vinod Kumar Belt No. 690/12th BN Mattan Anantnag filed Second Appeal on 30.06.2015 before the State Information Commission (SIC) under J&K RTI Act, 2009 stating that appellant sought certain information from PIO IRP 3rd BN (Parihaspura) on 07.03.2015. The constable alleges that PIO has supplied the information vide letter dated 11.04.2015 received by him on 22.04.2015, but the information provided was misleading and the PIO has tried to keep certain things behind curtains. The RTI applicant had sought pay bills of IRP 3rd BN for the months of January, June & December 2014 and January-February 2015 which was not provided to him. This was responded by the PIO stating that the information asked with regard to pay bills is entirely fiduciary and personal, as such could not be supplied as provided under Section 8(1) sub-clause (e) & (i). This has been contested by the appellant before SIC by submitting that pay bills of any Department have nothing to do with the fiduciary relationship of any employee. Appellant while contesting this case before SIC said that on the other hand there is no invasion of privacy of any individual if these pay bills are provided. It is averred that fact PIO is deliberately not providing him these pay bills as huge loss to Government exchequer has already been caused by these people by drawing certain allowances at higher rates which are not applicable to them. SIC's decision "In view of aforesaid reasons, the order of the PIO is upheld. At Para B, the information seeker has sought HRA of Hqr Coy officials of IRP 3rd BN drawn during these months. This has been responded to by the PIO by referring to information already provided vide Para (B) of letter dated 14.03.2015. This has been contested by the appellant in his objections stating that he has been provided information which he never asked for and that he only raised the issue of Hqr. Coy situated at Parihaspura, which has not been discussed by the PIO in his reply. PIO has submitted that the accounts of the battalion are audited by the Audit Party of AG J&K, and Audit Party has not objected to the drawls made under HRA. However, the audit report enclosed with the para wise reply of PIO has pointed out irregular drawl of HRA at higher rates. Since PIO has not denied this information in respect of other Coys and also given the fact that Audit Party has pointed out irregular drawal of HRA at higher rates, PIO is directed to provide information sought at Point B without revealing the names of the officials. As regards Para-C, response of the PIO that names of Gazetted Officers (GO's) could not be provided due to security reasons is upheld, as this limb of information shall fall under Section (8) (f) of the Act i.e. information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life of physical safety of any person or identity of the source of information. However, PIO is directed to provide other limb of this information as it is similar in nature to the information sought at Point B. As regards information sought at Point E, the rate of House Rent Allowance (HRA) application at Parihaspura be intimated to the appellant in light of SRO 226 already provided to the information seeker".   Share This News with Your Friends on Social Network     Comment on this Story

top stories of the day

Leave for London, ask their staff to answer queries raised by legislators SHAME:DyCM, Ministers of "nationalist" BJP miss wreath laying ceremony of martyr soldiers BJP Ministers throw ball in each other's court, MoS lobby presses for 'reshuffle' Providing land to border residents at safer places: Centre, State passing buck on each other Formation of Jammu based regional party on cards Jammu's civil society for a regional party Omar Abdullah’s latest concern: why's there less rice on wazwan trami? "Powerful" Inspector gets PS of his choice Rashid's challenge on beef party receives Saffron brigade's backlash Now, Lal Singh terms Mufti-led police deptt corrupt ‘LoC banking to dilute Indian stand on POK’ Police officer killed in Bandipora shootout Despite trying times, Govt sailed smoothly: Mufti 1295780 vehicles registered in J&K till August, 602645 in Jammu district Constable alleges scam in IRP, info denied under RTI Doda-Kishtwar road Govt's top priority: Mufti Ceasefire violations along LoC claims lives of 28 civilians, 20 security men Will Congress replicate 2010 in 2015? To curb anti-national activities, authorities ban separatists' seminar Passport for Geelani, unending wait for others ‘Militants may strike in Jammu during festive season’ Assembly speaker, council chairman order revocation of suspension of legislators NC Minister's message on JK Libraries' website mocks at Digital India campaign BJP Ministers throw ball in each other's court, MoS lobby presses for 'reshuffle'

STOCK UPDATE

BSE Sensex NSE Nifty

CRICKET UPDATE