Central Information Commission
Jacob Zachariah vs Food Corporation Of India on 21 February, 2025
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/FCIND/A/2023/147542.
Shri Jacob Zachariah. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Food Corporation of India.
Date of Hearing : 17.02.2025
Date of Decision : 17.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.07.2023
PIO replied on : 30.10.2023
First Appeal filed on : 18.09.2023
First Appellate Order on : 06.10.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 12.12.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.07.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1. A copy of the relevant note file containing the discussions that were held in the matter.
2. Final decision on the case by the competent authority."
Aggrieved by non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within time limit, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.09.2023. The FAA, DGM(F&A), FCI Thiruvanantpuram vide order dated 06.10.2023 stated as under:-
"With reference to the letter cited under reference cited 1, this office has received the RTI Appeal of Shri Jaccob Zachariah dated 18.09.2023. In this regard, vide reference 2 cited it is to mention that the information sought/ documents requested in Point 1- and it does not pertains to Accounts division of FCI RO TVM Accordingly, the RTI appeal is transferred under RTI Act 2005 with a request to examine the RTI application as per the provision of RTI Act and provide the requisite information directly to the applicant within stipulated time frame."
The CPIO, DGM, Zonal Office, FCI Chennai vide letter dated 30.10.2023 replied as under:-
Page 1 "1. The petitioner's right extends only to seeking information as defined in section 2(f) either by pinpointing the file, document, paper or records, etc, or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified public authority. The public authority under the RTI Act is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information.
2.The matter is under process and the decision yet to be taken."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri Ram Kumar, GM ( P ) The CPIO vide written submission dated 16.12.2024 submitted that applicant has not pointed out the exact information but indeed seeking the copy of note file containing the discussions that were held in the matter which is grievance in nature and not a RTI Request. Further the applicant is a retired officer of FCI and is availing the benefits under Post retirement Medical Scheme (PRMS). The Hon'ble Central Information Commission in its Decision No.833/IC(A)/2007 dated 14.06.2007 on Dr. K.C Vijay kumaran Nair Vs. Department of Posts has held that "the information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the grab of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances", hence the information sought was not provided. The Petitioner's right extends only to seeking information as defined in section 2(f) either by pinpointing the file, document, paper or records, etc, or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified public authority. The public authority under the RTI Act is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information. The reply has already provided to the applicant as-The matter is under process.
Further the final status is -Shri. Jacob Zacharaiah, M(A/Cs) retired has claimed for reimbursement of his medical bills to DM, DO, Kottayam for the period from 23.11.2021 to 18.02.2022 to an amount of Rs. 4356.03/-. Divisional Manager of DO, Kottayam being the competent authority has reimbursed an amount of Rs. 3280.08/- which have valid Doctor Prescription for the period from 23.11.2021 to 21.01.2022 and disallowed an amount of Rs. 975.75 for the pharmacy bill No. 8054 dated 20.01.2022 which doesn't carry treating doctor prescription. The ex-officer on 01.04.2022 re-submitted the disallowed bill to DM, DO, Kottayam to reconsider the bill. DM, DO, Kottayam has re-examined the claim and in the light of point no 3 of FCI Hqrs Circular dated 09.03.2015 i.e "The FCI Drawing and Disbursing Officer/Authority concerned may verify and check the authenticity of the medical claims(IPD/OPD) submitted by FCI beneficiary(serving and retired) on the basis of the treating doctors prescriptions, diagnostic reports and discharge summary(as applicable in case of IPD) in such cases" and advisory issued by FCI Hqrs Circular dated 06.09.2017 i.e "Discharged summary and the prescription issued by the hospital should be cross verified" has rejected the claim as doctor Page 2 prescription ZO (S)-14.0014.0(29.0)/1/2022-Personnel-ZO SOUTH I/1736042/2024 is essential for reimbursement of any medical claim. Aggrieved by the same, the ex-officer has submitted a representation dated 21.07.2022 to FCI, ZO(S), Chennai enclosing the claim details. This office has examined the claim in consultation with Regional Medical Officer and instructed RO, Kerala vide letter dated 01.02.2024 to take necessary action as per FCI Hqrs Letter No. EP 43(01)/2021 dated 11.02.2022.
Accordingly, DM, DO, Kottayam has re-examined the claim and confirmed the disallow of the bill claim.
Decision:
Upon the perusal of the case records & submissions, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has been given by the CPIO. The Commission directs the CPIO to send the copy of the written submission dated 16.12.2024 with annexures as mentioned above to the Appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order by speed post/ registered post/ Email & further send a compliance report of this order to the Commission 01 week thereafter. No further action lies.
The Appeal stands disposed off.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)