Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Dinesh Singh vs Central Government Health Service ... on 26 September, 2024

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                      के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                              नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CGHSD/A/2023/640621

Shri Dinesh Singh                                                   ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                     VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Central Government Health Service, Mumbai                 ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                            :   24.09.2024
Date of Decision                           :   24.09.2024
Chief Information Commissioner             :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :             26.04.2023
PIO replied on                    :             NA
First Appeal filed on             :             18.07.2023
First Appellate Order on          :             16.08.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :             23.08.2023

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

"1. O.M. or clarification issued and Review thereof by the HOD for inappropriate practice copy of the minutes of meeting orders instructions, if any issued by the HOD.

2. Name & Number's of Pensioner's Representation / Letter E-mail etc., received alongwith with their name (report/record/information) from 01.10.2022. Kindly provide complaint copy after striking name or under section 10 of RTI Act, 2005. 3. Provide MOHFW or any Competent Authority O.M. for not accepting E-mail Request, for indenting special or otherwise request of Pensioner's.

4. Pl provide information/record/copy in r/o full name, designation along with notesheet of the officer's dealing with this RTI application. All information/ record / correspondence with CPIO to and fro from CPIO may be provided with a copy sent to all wellness centre. ..

6. Pl forward list of employee who has availed re-imbursement of Mobile charges as per OM alongwith their Mobile Number. Etc."

Aggrieved by non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within the time limit, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2023. The FAA vide order dated 16.08.2023 furnished the information as under:-

"Point No.6: Pensioner Indenting special Medicines for the period 01/10/2022 to till date--

Point No.7 (i): As per existing guideline.

(ii): As per guideline from MOH&FW Essentiality certificate is required for both- imported LSD and manufactured in India LSD.

(iii): No clear guideline.

(iv): As per existing guideline.

(v): No information available.

(vi): No information available.

(vii): No information available.

Point No.8 (i): No information/OM/Minutes of meeting available.

ii): copy attached.

iii): No information/OM available.

iv): Dr. Viraj S. Karuley, Sr. Medical Officer and CPIO. A copy of the correspondence is enclosed herewith.

v): Not applicable.

vi): 41 employees are availing the re-imbursement of mobile charges as per seniority and eligibility. A copy of OM is enclosed herewith. Personal details cannot be given as per Clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8.

vii): Sent through email."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

An undated written submission has been received wherein the Respondent stated that reply to the RTI application was given on 16.08.2023.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Dr. Aravind Maddi - CPIO, CGHS, Mumbai was present during hearing. The Respondent contended that point wise information had been duly provided to the Appellant vide reply dated 16.08.2023, on the basis of records available with the public authority.

Decision:

Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing averments of the Respondent, it is evident that the FAA vide order dated 16.08.2023 had furnished the point wise information to the Appellant, which should have been done in fact by the PIO. The PIO present during hearing is thus cautioned and advised to strictly adhere to the timeline stipulated under the RTI Act while responding to RTI cases in future, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated against him, for non adherence of the provisions of the Act.

In the given circumstances, it is evident that the Respondent-FAA has sent appropriate reply based on records available with the public authority, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case at hand. Hence, no further intervention is warranted in this case, at this stage, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 2 of 3 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)