Central Information Commission
Sardar Singh vs Central Government Health Service on 17 July, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No. CIC/CGHSR/A/2017/183693
Date of Hearing : 12-07-2017
Date of Decision :
Appellant/Complainant : Sardar Singh
Respondent : 1)CPIO under RTI, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Central
Government Health Scheme
2) First Appellate Authority under
RTI, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare ,Central Government
Health Scheme
Through: Dr. Mohanlal, Dr. Suman
Kathuria
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04-04-2016
PIO replied on : 26-04-2016
First Appeal filed on : 09-05-2016
First Appellate Order on : -
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 03-11-2016
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 04-04-2016, the appellant sought following information with reference to letter No.-S-9886/2015/R&H/CGHS(HQ)/2640 dated 17.11.2015:-
1. Copy of the board proceedings wherein the medical board has declared the disability of the appellant of 75% visually handicapped as not entitled for double transport allowance.
2. Eligibilty criteria for granting transport allowance double the normal rate to a handicapped Government servant and also a copy of instructions governing such eligibility criteria.
3. Whether a visually handicapped certificate from Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS, Delhi valid for grant of double transport allowance and what other documents are required to grant such allowance.
4. A copy of instructions/rules which govern /cater for the need to constitute a medical board to assess the eligibilty for grant of transport allowance at double the normal rate to the blind employees and updation of the term blindness as defined in Rule 2(b)(i)(ii)(iii) of the persons with Disabilities Act ,1995.
Unsatisfied by the reply of the CPIO dated 26-04-2016, which stated that information was not available with the CGHS since it was not related to them, the aggrieved appellant filed a first appeal on 09.05.2016. However there was no response of the FAA. Aggrieved the appellant has approached the Commission on non receipt of information.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
1. The appellant is not present while the Respondent has appeared and reiterated the contents from documents already submitted. Alongwith the submissions the Respondent has also placed on record, a decision of the Apex Court Bench of J. K.S. Radhakrishnan and J. A. K. Sikri. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was adjudicating a writ petition wherein the petitioner had sought direction from the Court for inter alia grant of transport allowance to its government employees suffering from hearing impairment on similar terms like what is being given to visually impaired and orthopedically handicapped government employees. The various Office Memorandums issued in this regard by the Central Government since 1978 were discussed in the said decision titled Deaf Employees Welfare Association & another Vs. Union of India & others, (Civil) no. 107/2011, dated 12.12.2013, which held as follows:
18. The Disabilities Act, as already indicated, states that the "persons with disabilities" means persons suffering from not less than 40% of "any disability", as certified by the medical doctor.
When a person is having any of the disabilities mentioned in Section 2(i) and is so certified by the Medical Doctor, he is entitled to the benefits of all the Schemes and benefits provided by the Government and there can be no further discrimination among the persons with varied or different types of disabilities.
............................................................................................. .............................................................................................
22.............. In our view, the recommendation made by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for extending the benefit of transport allowance to the Government employees suffering from hearing impairment in equal with blinds and orthopaedically handicapped Government employees is perfectly legal and is in consonance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. A perusal of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995, definition clause Section 2, reveals as follows:
2(b) "blindness" refers to a condition where a person suffers from any of the following conditions, namely:- i. total absence of sight; or ii. visual acuity not exceeding 6/60 or 20/200 (snellen) in the better eye with correcting lenses; or iii. Limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of 20 degree or worse;
2(t) "person with disability" means a person suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability as certified by a medical authority;
3. The submissions on record indicate that though the appellant was declared 75% disabled by Senior Resident Doctor of R.P. Centre, AIIMS the same was not considered valid since it was not so certified by the Director of the Institute.
Decision:
After hearing submissions and perusal of record, the Commission notes from the deliberation that the Dept of Opthalmology, Senior Resident Doctor of R.P. Centre, AIIMS has certified that the appellant is more than 75% disabled and visually handicapped. Provisions of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 are also clearly in favour of the appellant's as is the Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the rejection of a small claim of transport allowance by a 75% visually handicapped Government employee on grounds of technical deficiencies is found completely insensitive and unacceptable. The Respondent has also informed the Commission that the disease is progressive in nature and the amount to be disbursed to the appellant is miniscule as compared to the benefit it can provide to the appellant. Accordingly, the matter has already been referred to the Ministry by the CGHS. Considering the facts of the case at hand, the Commission hopes that a pragmatic and humane approach is adopted and such a basic allowance as has been rightfully claimed by the appellant may be released in his favour. A copy of this order may be marked to the Secretary, MoHFW, recommending an expeditious action on the plea of the appellant. Having said that, it is noted that information as sought under RTI Act has already been provided. The Respondent is directed to submit a status report before this Commission within four weeks from today, with an advance copy served upon the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:-
SARDAR SINGH Central Public Information Quarter No.-718, Lodhi Road Officer
Complex, New Delhi-110003. Dr. V. Subhash-Joint Delhi,New Delhi Dir.-(R&H)/HQ., O/o. the Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme, CGHS Wellness Centre Building, R. K. Puram, Sector-12, New Delhi-110022.
First Appellate Authority under RTI O/o. the Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme, CGHS Wellness Centre Building, R. K. Puram, Sector-12, New Delhi-110022.