Central Information Commission
Nachiketa Ghosh vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 18 October, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/ESICO/A/2020/117673-UM
Mr. Nachiketa Ghosh
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Employees State Insurance
Corporation ESI PGIMSR,ESIC
Medical College and ESIC
Hospital (EZ) Joka Diamond
Harbour Road Kolkata 700104
....प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.10.2021
Date of Decision : 18.10.2021
Date of RTI application 27.05.2019
CPIO's response 30.05.2019
Date of the First Appeal 02.07.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 25.07.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 29.06.2020
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information pertaining to his eligibility of yearly increment including all allowances as applicable to Senior Resident against GDMO in 3 year contract under 7th CPC, Level 11.
The CPIO vide letter dated 30.05.2019 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 25.07.2019 furnished a reply to the appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide the information.
Page 1 of 2HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Nachiketa Ghosh, present through AC. Respondent: Mr. Simran Das, Assistant Director, present through AC.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that he had sought information regarding eligibility of yearly increment of pay for the post of Senior Residents etc. The Appellant further stated that an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfil his purpose. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information. The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 30.05.2019 they had furnished a reply to the Appellant as per record available in their office. The Respondent further submitted that the post of Senior Resident under Residency Scheme is eligible for annual increment but no guidance in respect of Senior Resident against General Duties Medical Officer (GDMO) is available.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished to the Appellant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and furnish a precise and an updated revised reply to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 18.10.2021 Page 2 of 2