regards
sandeep
On 7/1/11, AVTAR SINGH <avtarsingh119@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Sarabjit Roy,
>
> I am a rertired officer from defence.
> I along with 200 officers have won our case regarding pension at three
> different benches of AFT,
> The plea has been identical and judgement similar. The judgement was
> delivered on 16 Sep 2010,1 Nov 2011 and 25 Nov 2011.
>
> Though the stipulated period of three/four months has elapsed we have not
> got our dues.
>
> One of our fellow ranling officers who was not a petitioner have have filed
> two RTIS on 15 and a6 marcg 2011.
>
> The reminder for this was sent as first appeal to the appellate authority on
> 15 may 2011 and 18 June 2011
>
> We now propose to file second appeal to CIC.
>
> Can you suggest some expert of RTI around Delhi who could assist us in
> filing second appeal to CIC.
>
> regards
>
> Avtar Singh
> 1-7-2011
>
>
>
>
> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 07:03:48 +0530
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] "Dear RTI Activist, please solve
> my problem for free"
> From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> Dear Karira ("rtiwanted")
>
> Many thanks for finally getting Mr Krishnaraj Rao to openly admit that he is
> in the business of filing RTI applications and negotiating deals to "defend"
> people's assets for a charge. The bonafides of his so-called RTI Users
> Association are completely exposed by this statement.
>
> Secondly, if we recall his "hunger strike" at Anna's vilage of Ralegaon
> Siddhi, it is quite obvious that he is only trying to replicate (in his own
> small way) Anna's own "business" model.
>
> Personally, I condemn such commercial minded people who are a blot on the
> RTI moivement, the less we interact with them the better. At
> HumJanenge-Googlegroups we are trying to make this a group for selfless
> people who freely asisst each other to further the RTI movement for nation
> building.
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Krishnaraj Rao <sahasipadyatri@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Jam,
>
> My conclusion is:
>
> 1) RTI activists/experts should reasonably charge private parties whose
> assets they defend, provided the parties are capable of bearing the charge.
>
> 2) In private matters where there is a very large element of public
> interest, they may consider not charging.
>
> 3) They should not charge citizens who are working for public interest. In
> fact, for such citizens, they should go out of their way to help with time
> and monetary resources.
>
> 4) For ensuring the health of the RTI movement, they have a multiple
> responsibility. They have to act in such a way that:
> a) Public Interest is paramount in all that they do or say.
> b) People who uphold public interest remain in good financial health.
> c) Private parties get good quality service and growing numbers of
> service-providers (paid) or guidance-providers (free) to choose from.
> d) There is plenty of self-help knowledge available in the public domain so
> that people take the paid services out of free choice, and not because of
> lack of access to information.
>
> Thanks for your interest in this discussion.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Krish
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:06 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>
>> Krishnaraj,
>>
>> So, what is your conclusion ?
>>
>> Should RTI activists/helpers/consultants/experts/etc charge citizens or
>> not
>> ?
>
> __._,_.___
>
>
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a new topic
> Messages in this topic (5)
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> Visit Your Group
> messages in archives can be accessed only by members, but all are welcome to
> join hum janenge group. visit http://indiarti.blogspot.com to know
> everything on rti.
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
>
>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
>
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
No comments:
Post a Comment