Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Drr K Karol vs Ministry Of Labour & Employment on 17 November, 2014

                          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             Club Building (Near Post Office)
                           Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                  Tel: +91-11-26101592

                                                               File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/002924/6373
                                                                                17 November 2014
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                                  :      Dr. R. K. Karol
                                                  1004 Deevika Apartment
                                                  16, Vaishali,
                                                  Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

Respondent                                 :      CPIO
                                                  Indira Gandhi ESI Hospital
                                                  Jhilmil,
                                                  Delhi - 110095

RTI application filed on                   :      30/05/2013
PIO replied on                             :      26/06/2013
First appeal filed on                      :      15/07/2013
First Appellate Authority order            :      13/08/2013
Second Appeal dated                        :      26/10/2013

Information sought

:-

Hon'ble Delhi High Court has granted ESI Allowance to medical officers in its adjustment. As per guidance issued by Hon'ble Delhi Court I applied for the same on 3rd March 2012, even after a lapse of more than two months I have not received my allowance.
1. Why there is so much delay?
2. Has any other applicant doctor taken such long time to get disbursement?
3. Has some official raised any objection/clarification for disbursement?
4. Has the same official raised similar objection/clarification in case of other claimant doctors?
5. Why the reason of delay/refusal not communicated to me?

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Rana CPIO through VC The CPIO stated that the appellant had a grievance regarding delay in payment of his ESI allowance and vide his RTI application dated 30/05/2013 he has raised queries of interrogatory nature but these are not covered by the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. He further stated that vide letter dated 26/06/2013 the appellant was informed that his Surety Bond & Undertaking was sent to cash branch on 08/05/2013, however, there was delay in Page 1 of 2 processing his claim as cash branch was awaiting some clarification from HQ. The appellant is not present for canvassing his case/contesting the CPIO's submissions.
Decision notice:
From the CPIO's submissions it appears that the information, as available on record, has been provided. If, however, the appellant has any doubt in the matter the CPIO should permit him to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI application dated 30/05/2013 and also allow him to take photocopies/extracts therefrom, free of cost, upto 5 pages within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2