Central Information Commission
Mr.P Upendra Gupta vs Ministry Of Social Justice And ... on 17 June, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003416
June 17, 2013
Appellant : Shri P. Upendra Gupta
Respondents : Office of the Chief Commissioner for
Persons with Disabilities, M/o Social
Justice & Empowerment, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 17.06.2013
ORDER
The present appeal dated 26.09.2012, filed by Shri P. Upendra Gupta against office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi was taken up for hearing on 17.06.2013 when the Respondents were present through Ms. Geeta Marwah, Desk Officer and Shri Nandan Singh, P.A. The Appellant, however, chose not to be present for hearing. Facts of the Case:
2. The Appellant filed his RTI application dated 05.11.2010 with the CPIO, office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities New Delhi seeking CIC/SS/A/2012/003416 Page 1 of 5 certain information regarding his service matters, such as promotional opportunities, alleged atrocities against him by UCO bank, penalties imposed on him in disciplinary case etc. He also requested to consider his transfer case under protection and welfare of rights of disabled persons.
3. Since the Appellant did not receive any response from the CPIO, he filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 20.12.2010. Subsequently, the Desk Officer, Shri Rajeev Malhotra, who appeared to have treated the RTIapplication of the Appellant as grievance petition, vide his letter dated 11.01.2011, requested the Appellant to submit a copy of his disability certificate and an undertaking to the effect whether his matter is pending or decided by any court of law or not so that they can examine his case.
4. The Appellate Authority also disposed of the Appellant's first appeal vide his order dated 01.03.2011 wherein he recorded that neither the representation dated 15.11.2010 nor the appeal under reference of the Appellant fall under the definition of information as given in section 2(f) of the RTI Act. He, however, informed the Appellant that his issues concerning his service matter would be examined by the concerned officer.
5. Thereafter, the Appellant received another reply dated 23.08.2011 from Shri Rajeev Malhotra, Desk Officer, by which he was provided with the reply (on his representation) received from UCO Bank and was requested to submit his comments indicating specific violation of PwD Act, if any, along with supporting documents to consider further course of action in the matter.
CIC/SS/A/2012/003416 Page 2 of 5
6. After receiving the above reply, the Appellant once again took up the matter with the Appellate Authority through his appeal dated 23.09.2011, acting on which the Appellate Authority passed another order dated 02.11.2011. In this order, the Appellate Authority, while informing the Appellant the progress of his case, held that the representation of the Appellant does not fall under the definition of information as given in section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the Appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.
Decision:
8. During the hearing, the Respondents inform the Commission that they are a quasi judicial authority under the 'Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995' which empowers them to deal with grievance of persons of disability. Therefore, in the instant case, according to them, they had initially treated the Appellant's RTI application as a grievance petition and acted/responded to it accordingly. However, the FAA has replied to the appeal filed before him by the Appellant by explaining him that his application did not fall within the ambit of the definition of "information" as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. They mention, however, that they had taken up the Appellant's grievance with the concerned body/organization i.e. UCO Bank in the present case and had also received their version, copy of which they have provided to the Appellant with a request to submit his comment.
CIC/SS/A/2012/003416 Page 3 of 5
9. Having considered the submissions of the parties and on perusal of records, the Commission concurs with the order of the Appellate Authority that the Appellant's RTI request is in fact pertains to his grievance regarding his service matters and that his request is in fact a plea to the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to consider his case under protection and welfare of rights of disabled persons. The Commission, therefore, finds no reason to disagree with the Appellate Authority. Moreover, as informed during the hearing, the Appellant's case has already been taken up with the Chairman, UCO Bank under the appropriate provision of 'Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995'.
10. In view of the above, the instant appeal cannot be allowed and is rejected.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated by (D.C. Singh) Deputy Registrar Address to the parties:
1. Shri P. Upendra Gupta C/o Shri P. Nagabhushan Road China Bazar Main Road House No. 8492/12, Berhampur Ganjam CIC/SS/A/2012/003416 Page 4 of 5 Odisha 760002
2. The Central Public Information Officer Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Department of Disability Affairs Sarojni House, 6 Bhagwan Dass Road New Delhi 110001
3. The Appellate Authority Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Department of Disability Affairs Sarojni House, 6 Bhagwan Dass Road New Delhi 110001 CIC/SS/A/2012/003416 Page 5 of 5