Central Information Commission
Bharat Bhushan Puri vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 10 November, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/ESICO/A/2019/109903
In the matter of:
Bharat Bhushan Puri
... Appellant
VS
1.CPIO/Director
Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC)
HQ Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Marg, New Delhi - 110002
2. Dy. Director/ Med-VI, Deemed CPIO
Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC)
HQ Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Marg, New Delhi - 110002
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 22/09/2018 CPIO replied on : 05/11/2018 First appeal filed on : 22/10/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 01/11/2018 Second Appeal filed on : 06/03/2019 Date of Hearing : 09/11/2020 Date of Decision : 09/11/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Reena Hira, Assistant Director and Deemed PIO; Shri Mukesh, Deputy Director and CPIO's Representative, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant in his second appeal has stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided to him on query No.2 &6 of his RTI application, which are stated below:1
2. Number of officers in the Dental cadre in ESIC due for upgradation under Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) separately for upgradation to GP Rs.6600/-, Rs.7600/-, Rs.8700/- and Rs.10000/- Also show the earliest and the latest date on which the senior most and junior most dental officers in the respective grades are due for upgradation to the said grades.
6. Copies of latest Seniority lists of Dental Officers in all the grades from Rs.5400/- to Rs.10000/-.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided satisfactory information on points 2 and 6 of the RTI application.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal contested the information provided in points no. 2 & 6 of the RTI application. In respect of point no. 2, he contended that the CPIO had replied vaguely (without any information in material form) and in respect of point no. 6 he stated that no information was given. Smt. Reena Hira, Assistant Director and PIO submitted a copy of the revised reply dated 03.11.2020 in respect of points no. 2 & 6 of the RTI application. On a query, she submitted that she sent the reply to the CPIO on 03.11.2020 and Shri Mukesh representing the CPIO submitted that the same was sent through e-mail on the same day.
The appellant submitted that he is not aware of the reply as he had not checked his e-mail.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that a suitable reply was given on 03.11.2020 by the deemed PIO. However, as the same was not yet checked by the appellant being unaware of any e-mail sent to him, the CPIO was asked to send a copy via speed post as well as e-mail again. Decision:
In view of the revised reply dated 03.11.2020 of the deemed PIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Commission accordingly upholds the revised reply of the deemed PIO. However, this information should have been provided at the appropriate time rather than waiting for the notice of hearing of the Commission and the providing the 2 revised reply. The CPIO is directed to resend the reply as discussed above within 3 days from the date of issue of this order. The Respondent is cautioned to exercise due care in future to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 shall be initiated.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णतस या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3