Central Information Commission
Shiv Pratap Singh Tomar vs Central Government Health Service ... on 27 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
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/CGHSD/C/2024/601082.
Shri Shiv Pratap Singh Tomar. निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Central Government Health Service.
Date of Hearing : 24.02.2025
Date of Decision : 24.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 28.10.2023
PIO replied on : NA
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 09.01.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.10.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"It is humbly requested to kindly furnish the following information:- Is a Central Government employee, who himself/herself suffers from permanent severe hearing disability, eligible for reimbursement of cost of cochlear implant surgery? What would be the ceiling of reimbursement? Kindly refer me to the relevant rules/guidelines."
Aggrieved by non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within the time limit, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
PIO has furnished reply dated 06.02.2025 as under:
In Reference to the CIC Notice No.CIC/CGHSD/A/2024/601082 dated 30.01.2025, in the matter of Sh. Shiv Pratap Singh Tomer, in this regard it is stated that the RTI application Reg. No. CGHSE/R/E/23/01106 dated 28.10.2023 and 1 app appeal CGHSE/A/E/23/00420 were not received on CGHS Page 1 Delhi RTI portal (Reg. Code CGHSD). Now the copy of RTI application dated 28.10.2023 is received with CIC notice in R&H Section, CGHS(HQ) on 31.01.2025.
Guidelines and Reimbursement of the cost of the cochlear implant to beneficiaries under CGHS/CS(MA) rules 1944 are as per CGHS OM F.No. 6-469/2003-CGHS/R&H, dated - 12.06.2009. (copy enclosed) Written submission dated 10.02.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
In Reference to the notice for Hearing of Hon'ble CIC vide no. CIC/CGHSD/A/2024/601082 dated 21.01.2025, received in this office on 27.01.2025, through Dy. Registrar CIC. In this regard, it is informing that, RTI application CGHSE/R/E/23/01106 dated 28.10.2023 and First Appeal CGHSE/A/E/23/00420, were not received on online-RTI portal CGHS Delhi (Registration Code-CGHSD). Now the copy of RTI application dated 28.10.2023 and 1st appeal is receive with CIC notice dated 21.01.2025, and the information to RTI dated 28.10.2024, already been provided to applicant by CPIO/AD(R&H) vide letter dated 06.02.2025 (copy enclosed).
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Not present Written submission dated 10.02.2025 has been received from the CPIO wherein it has been mentioned that the instant RTI Application and First Appeal was not received in their office. Furthermore, a reply dated 06.02.2025 has been furnished to the Complainant.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Commission notes that as submitted by the CPIO in their written submission the instant RTI Application and First Appeal was not received in their office.
Page 2 Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx Page 3 "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)