Central Information Commission
Mr. Ramesh Kumar vs Principal Secretary (Health & Fw), Gnct ... on 12 August, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001575/4435
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001575
Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Kumar
Pharmacy Graduates Welfare Association
C-7/28 ,Yamuna Vihar,
New Delhi- 110053
Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Behari
Principal Secretary (Health & FW)
GNCT of Delhi
9th Level, 'A' Wing, Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate, New Delhi-02
RTI application filed on : 22/04/2008
PIO replied : 07/11/2008
First Appeal filed on : 28/07/2008
First Appellate Authority order : No order.
Second Appeal filed on : 16/03/2009
Information sought:
1) Based on the 100 bed hospital norms for the staff year 2006, Delhi Government
a) Differentiate the duties and responsibilities of IPD & OPD pharmacist.
b) Who is responsible for store and maintainence of drugs pharmaceutical and equipments in the hospitals.
c) Eligibility criteria for the post of office superintendent cum store purchase officer. i) And wether this official is responsible for purchase of drug& pharmaceutical. ii) And if this official has educational qualification pertaining to the said field.
d) Average no. of patients per doctor per day in OPD.
Average no. of patients per day per doctor in IPD.
Average no. of patients per nurse per day in IPD.
Average no. of patients per pharmacist per day in OPD.
Average number of patients per pharmacist per day in IPD.
e) The Appellant soughts information pertaining to 100 and more than 100 beds hospitals regarding the compliance of IPD pharmacist norms of the Delhi Government. And what actions are taken against Non-compliance of the same.
f) The details of the officials with designation who set the 100 bed hospitals Staffing norms 2006. Furthermore a detailed copy of the documents and recommendations that govern the selection of the hospital staff.
2) Pertaining to the ward pharmacy in Delhi & Central government, the Appellant be made known of all the legalities of the Pharmacy Act 1948 in terms of dispensing, storing, accounting of drugs and pharmaceuticals and who is responsible for the violation of the act in Delhi government hospitals and other institutions, in which case if the concerned office of the Principal secretary of Delhi (H & FW), the Lt. Governor, the Prime Minister, the President and the Parliament is aware of.
3) The Appellant sought information regarding the recruitment rule (RR) for the post of the Chief pharmacist in Delhi government as well as the date of entry of this proposal in the Delhi govt. records and the reasons for not framing the said post, present status of the framing process along with the mention of those who are responsible for the delay.
4) Under the Delhi government which hospitals have how many posts of the Assistant Chief hospital pharmacist and the Chief hospital pharmacist. Out of which how many posts were abolished over the last five years and how many are vacant along with reasons.
5) Details pertaining the experience criterion of the RR of Assistant Chief hospital pharmacist.
6) Specifications for a pharmacy as per the Pharmacy Act 1948 and how many Delhi govt. hospitals have kept up to the specified standard therein.
7) Information regarding the conditions for Drug storage according to the Act and reasons for not maintaining the same.
8) Detailed information on the eligibility criterion of the different posts (hierarachical) in Intensive Pulse Polio Immunization Programme of DHS.
9) Detailed information on the eligibility criterion for different posts pertaining to Drugs & Pharmaceuticals and details of the officials posted on the respective posts.
10) Information on the details & criteria of PG allowance in the Delhi government.
11) Benefits of Higher technical education.
12) Wether Pharmacy Act 1948 , is a part of the Indian Constitution and if it gets implemented as prescribed. If not, who is responsible, and if the concerned offices are aware of the same.
PIO's Reply:
The PIO-cum-OSD to LG transferred the Appellant's application to the Principal Secretary (H&FW) GNCTD, who in turn transferred the application to Medical Superintendent's Of all the hospitals , GNCTD under Rule 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005. However on receipt of Appellants intimation that information provided by some hospitals was unsatisfactory, the Secretariat transferred the appeal to concerned First Appellate authorities of all hospitals, a copy of which was provided to the Appellant.. The Appellant was furthermore advised to approach the PIO-cum-Addl.Secretary-II , Health & Family Welfare Department , GNCTD, for seeking information maintained by the Secretariat (H & FW).
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response.
Order of the First Appellate Authority: No order.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant found the response unsatisfactory, incomplete and biased.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ramesh Kumar Respondent: Absent The Appellant has sought very voluminous information from the office of the Lqt. Governor. The PIO of the Lqt. Governor transferred the application to Directorate of Health and Family welfare who intern transferred the application to various hospitals. Some perfunctionary answers has been received and many of the queries of the Appellant do not seek information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant is advised to focus his RTI queries and address them to the PIO's of the appropriate department.
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 12 August 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SP)