RTI Application Filed in Basic Education Department UP Regarding ShikshaMitra

RTI Application Filed in Basic Education Department UP Regarding ShikshaMitra

Unsatisfactory response received by applicant, So he filed appeal in CIC office


CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002228/10146
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002228
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Pawan Aggarwal
Jilal Street, Mandi Chowk,
Muradabad.
Respondent : Mr. G. A. Raghuvanshi
PIO & Under Secretary
Min.of Labour & Employment
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 12/05/2010
PIO replied : 11/06/2010
First appeal filed on : 14/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered
Second Appeal received on : 06/08/2010Information sought:
1) Copy of the order related to the appointment of instructor working in Child Labor Welfare Centre.
2) Details of their service condition and the labor rule under which under which it fell.
3) Whether there was any provision for renewal of the honorarium of Child Labor Welfare Assistants
and details of increment of their honorarium.
4) Details minimum wages of the labor and whether the salary of the volunteers were less that the
minimum wage. If yes, then the reason of the same.
5) Whether the training of the volunteers was equivalent to other training given by the PT and
Shiksha Mitra. If not then the details of the training given to the Volunteers
6) Whether the induction of the volunteers in any department was under consideration or not. Details
of the department in which they are given seniority.
7) Details of eligibility of Shiksha Mitra in Department Basic Education Department, UP. Date when they were appointed first time and their honorarium.


8) Whether the volunteers will be given smart cards given by the Indian Govt. and details of facilities
being given through smart cards.
9) Details of honorarium being given to the Shiksha Mitra and details of increment given to them
with date.
Reply of the PIO:
“I am directed to refer to your letter dated 9.3.2010 which was received in Ministry of Labour from Prime
Minister’s office vide their letter dated 16.03.2010 on the subject mentioned above and to state that this
Ministry has already taken into consideration the proposal for enhancement of honorarium in respect of
teaching and non-teaching volunteers of Special Schools and the proposal is under active consideration of
the Government. As far as future of teaching and non—teaching volunteers are concerned, it is stated that
as per the extant guidelines, considering the nature of project activities, only such persons arc to be
engaged/appointed for Project Society work who have the inclination, urge and the motivation to serve
with a m zeal to withdraw’ and rehabi1 working children who are otherwise left out of the mainstreameducation. Project Society is responsible for selection, appointment, etc., of the project functionaries. It s
up to the Project Society to decide whom to retain as project functionaries to work in the NCL Project.
Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, does not interfere in the engagement of the
functionaries of the Project Society or the volunteers engaged by the NGOs selected to run Special
Schools under the Project for child labour. The Scheme of National Child Labour Project provides that
“since the project is to be set up for a limited period, neither the project staff nor the staff component of
special schools run by either Project Society or NGOs is to be regarded as permanent. The honorarium of the teacher/volunteers will be paid as per the guidelines of National Child Labour Project. The teaching volunteers for the special schools and other staff of the project society should be-engaged with the clear understanding/agreement that they will be paid a consolidated honorarium for their services which are more or less voluntary in nature. No scale of pay should be prescribed for any of the project staff except for the Project Director who is on deputation from the State Government.”
2. As the information in respect of points 8 & 9 concerns to the State Government of UP., the applicant may seek the information from them directly.”
First Appeal:
Non-receipt of the information from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
Not ordered.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. G. A. Raghuvanshi, PIO & Under Secretary;
The Respondent states that information available with him has been provided to the Appellant and
further information has also been provided by PIO at Muradabad. The Appellant has not specifically
pointed out what information he has not received. A perusal of the information provided by the PIO at
Muradabad with the information provided by the PIO in the Labour Ministry appears to be satisfactory. Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
24 November 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(AK)

Source : http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2010_002228_10146_M_46045.pdf