Dr. Sandeep Sharma vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 1 October, 2024

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Dr. Sandeep Sharma vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 1 October, 2024

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/ESICO/A/2023/140012


DR. SANDEEP SHARMA                                      ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                               VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                 ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Employees State Insurance Corporation

Date of Hearing                     :   27.09.2024
Date of Decision                    :   27.09.2024
Chief Information Commissioner      :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :     27.04.2023
PIO replied on                    :     15.06.2023
First Appeal filed on             :     31.05.2023
First Appellate Order on          :     17.07.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :     29.09.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.04.2023 seeking information on following points:-

1. Any requests received from X-ray PPP vendor regarding satisfactory completion of services, if yes, please provide all requests made by the vendor and reply to these letters by D(M)D.

2. When were the X-ray machines of vendor released by D(M)D, please clarify the date, was there any delay in order

3. Does the action w.r.t. order no F.No DMU-17/11/X-

ray/15/Med.II, "not to permit the vendor to take out X-ray machine and accessories till further order" justified legally by D(M)D, please share the file notings

5. Was Attendance of X-ray technicians marked electronically or manually at X-ray PPP sites, (i)Modi Mill, Okhla, (ii) Mangolpuri

(iii)Nand- Nagri (iv) NIA, Karampura (v) Dwarka

6. Who was marking attendance of staff deputed under PPP by vendor...etc..."

Page 1 The CPIO, Employees State Insurance Corporation vide letter dated 15.06.2023 replied as under:-

"Point No. 1:-As per available record, vendor has requested for satisfactory completion of services but this office has not issued the same. Point No. 2:-X-ray machine of the vendor were released on two dates i.e., 23.09.2022 and 28.12.2022. There is no delay in this office. Point No. 3:-Copy attached.

Point No. 5:-

     Okhla          Mangolpuri       Nand             NIA              Dwarka
     ModiMill                        Nagri            Karampura
     Manually       Vendor           Manually         Manually         No

  Point No. 6:-
       Okhla            Mangolpuri    Nand            NIA              Dwarka
       ModiMill                       Nagri           Karampura
       Employee         Vendor        Employee        Employees        No one in
                                                                       the
                                                                       dispensary

  Point No. 7:- Etc."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.05.2023 against point No. 3, 15, 18 to 23, 26 and 27 of the RTI application. The FAA vide order dated 17.07.2023 stated as under:-

Point No. 3:-Instruction has been issued after approval of D(M)D."

Point No. 15:-The information sought by the applicant in the original RTI is different from the ground of appeal by the applicant. Hence, the Information provided by the CPIO may be held as final information. Point No. 18 to 23:-The seeking Information sought by the applicant in the original RTI is different from the ground of appeal by the applicant. Point No. 26:-Copy attached Point No. 27.:-As per information received from ESI Dispensary Mangolpuri "No email was received from C- 15 MRI dated 19.10.22 in ESIC dispensary Mangolpuri."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Written submission dated 19.09.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present in person Page 2 Respondent: Mr. Santosh Kumar, AD- participated in the hearing.

The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him within stipulated time frame. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish the information as sought.

The Respondent stated that the relevant information as available in their official records has been duly provided to the Appellant. He further stated that complete information has been provided along with their latest written submission.

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 Complainant, 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.

Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.

Appeal is disposed off accordingly.

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)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission