Central Information Commission
A Roy Rozario vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 9 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MORLY/A/2023/137732
A Roy Rozario .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110001
2. CPIO Office of the Medical Director,
Railway Hospital, Peramur,
Chennai - 600023 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.01.2025
Date of Decision : 08.01.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2023
CPIO replied on : 08.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 08.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 07.08.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12.09.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 29.05.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 7
"I had sent a representation dt. 23.4.2023 to the Hon'ble Union Railway Minister, New Delhi, endorsing a copy to all concerned regarding the functioning/ deficiencies in the Old and New Railway Hospital, Perambur, Southern Railway, Chennai-23, which is creating much hardship to the Retired Railway Officers and Staff, seeking treatment under the RELHS Scheme, as RH/PER is refusing to treat even Accident cases under RELHS, treating even accidents as Out-Patient (OP) Category. On the other hand, the OP Doctors are prescribing medicines that are not available for Chronic diseases like Diabetes; etc., and forcing Senior Citizens to come several times to RH/PER and also in various Railway Health Units
1) Information of the Railway Board latest guidelines regarding the RELHS Scheme in the form of a copy of the latest Board's Order in force may please be sent.
2) Arrangements like extra Registration Counters made in New RH/PER/S. Rly as there are long ques outside the Registration counter.
3) Arrangements to set up free WIFI inside New RH/PER, as the Retired Railway Staff are unable to get Net connectivity under Railway HMIS App inside the Hospital to scan for Tokens outside the OP Rooms.
4) Arrangements to set up small LCD Screens outside the OP Rooms (as done in Hospitals) to display the OP Regn No and Name of Patient whose turn comes as per the Order of Registration and not as per the Sitting Que.
5) Arrangements to post Separate Doctors in OP, ONLY FOR MEDICINE REPEAT CASES (as done earlier), to avoid long ques and waiting time stretching to several hours.
6) Arrangements to ENTER THE STOCK OF MEDICINES AVAILABLE AT NEW RH/PER, in the PC System, so that the Doctors prescribe only the Medicines that are available on hand, to avoid visits by Retired Staff/Patients several times for the unavailable medicines.
7) Are Retired Railway Staff covered under RELHS Scheme not eligible for treatment after Road/Rail or Accidents at home, since Accidents are not treated under RELHS, and considered as OP and treatment denied, when State Government Hospitals treat accident cases free of cost, against denial of treatment by Railways despite collecting Last Basic Pay.
8) Details of Pay or Allowances deducted (since RELHS was introduced) from Doctors of New Railway Hospital/Perambur for referring or treating OP cases involved in injuries out of accidents Page 2 of 7 or illness not mentioned under Chronic diseases (as mentioned to me by Dr. King Gandhi, Sr. DMO/PER).
9) Any Order issued by Railway Board or CMD/MD/RH/PER/S. Rly to attend only 50 Cases per day twice a week, on a bi-weekly period in Special Clinics of New RH/PER for treatment of Skin/Gastro/Ortho, etc.
10) Budgetary Sanction and Amount Spent by both old and new RH/PER/S.Rly in the running of the Hospital under different heads for the last 5 years, including procurement of medicines, etc."
The CPIO, Railway Board, New Delhi, furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08.06.2023 stating as under:
"Item no. 01 and 07. Information in this regard, as available in para-No. 612 A of IRMM, 2000, letters 2011/H/28/1/RELHS/ No. Court Case dated 31.05.2012, 21.07.2018 and 24.11.2021 is enclosed at Annexure A, B, C and D respectively."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 07.08.2023, disposed of the first appeal and reply received on point Nos. 2 to 10 (except point No. 7) from the O/o Medical Director, Railway Hospital, Parambur, Chennai, is reproduced as under:
"Question Nos.2,3,4,5,6:
The information sought by the applicant are in the nature of advice/suggestion, therefore it does not fall under the definition of the information under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005.
Question No.8:
Information not available at RH/PER.
Question No.9:
No such orders issued.
Question No. 10:
The information sought by the applicant would disproportionately direct the resources of the administration. Hence the applicant can inspect the records at the office of the Medical Director, RH/PER as per the 2(j) of the RTI Act."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 of 7Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Pooran Mal Meena, CPIO (Dir./Health), Shri Krishna Kumar Sharma, DD/Health and Shri Saurabh Kumar Meena, ASO, Railway Board, New Delhi, (R-1) appeared in person and Dr. Kunjunjamma George, PIO (Medical)/ Southern Railway (R-2), appeared through video conference.
The respondent No. 1 (CPIO, Railway Board, New Delhi) while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought on point Nos. 1 and 7 of the RTI application pertained to them and the same has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 08.06.2023.
The respondent No. 2 (PIO(Medical)/ Southern Railway, Chennai) inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 20.12.2024 stating complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place it on record, copy of the same was sent to the appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"The applicant Sri. Roy Rozario had submitted an RTI first appeal dated 08/07/2023, (copy enclosed pages 4-6) seeking various details pertaining to the functioning of the Old and New Railway Hospital, Perambur, Southern Railway, Chennai-23, vide Q.No.02 to 06 & 08 to 10 and also stated that he had not received any information against his RTI application dated 29/05/203, under the RTI Act from PIO in the office of PCMD/S.Rly and MD/PER/S.Rly.
At this juncture, I would like to seek your kind attention to the following please.
The first appeal of Sri. Roy Rozario dated 08/07/2023 was received by PCMD/SR, on 10.07.2023 and his initial application dated 29/05/2023 (as he has mentioned in his first appeal), has not been received in this office from the Applicant/ Railway Board.
Reply to the question numbers Q.No.02 to 06 & 08 to 10 to the applicant vide this office letter No.MD/49/RTIA/38/2023 dated 07/08/2023 (Copy enclosed page 6-7) was furnished and sent to the applicant.Page 4 of 7
Not satisfied with the reply, the applicant had made an 2nd appeal dated 01/09/2023 (copy enclosed page 8-13) stating that " I had filed a RTI Application dt.29.5.2023 seeking information from the PIO/RTI Cell/Railway Board, New Delhi, to 10 RTI Queries related to the functioning of the Old and New Railway Hospital, Perambur, Southern Railway, Chennai-23.
The PIO& Director/Health/Railway Board, New Delhi-2 vide RTI Reply dt.8.6.2023 furnished information to my Queries 1&7 only and forwarded my RTI Application to PIO in the office of PCMD/Southern Railway, Chennai-23 for supplying me information to the remaining 8 RTI Queries.
As I did not get a Reply within the stipulated time limit of 30 days, I filed a First Appeal on dt.8.7.2023 with the FAA of Railway Board, New Delhi and Southern Railway, Chennai.
However, after I filed my First Appeal, the FAA &AGM/Southern Railway, Chennai- 3 forwarded a RTI reply dt.7.8.2023 received from the PIO&PCMD/Southern Railway, Perambur, Chennai-23, refusing to supply me information to the remaining 8 RTI Queries (Items 2 to 10-except 1 &7), citing 2(f) of the RTI Act'2005.
Hence, I am constrained to file this Second Appeal under the RTI Act'2005 before the Central Information Commission, New Delhi-2 seeking the Commission to conduct a Video-conferencing Inquiry at Chennai and pass Orders as deemed fit by the Central Information, New Delhi."
Regarding the above statement of the applicant, it may kindly be noted that this office has not received his RTI application.
His first appeal was received on 10/07/2023 for which the reply sent to the applicant on 07/08/2023.
"The question numbers 02 to 06 are in the nature of advice/suggestion; therefore, it does not fall under the purview of RTI as per section 2(f) of RTI act 2005.
Reply for the Q. No 08 - Information is not available at RH/PER.Page 5 of 7
Q.No.9- No such order issued by Railway Board or MD/RH/PER to attend only 50 cases per day twice week, on a bi-weekly period in Special Clinics of New RH/PER for treatment of Skin/Gastro/Ortho, etc. Q.No.10 "The information sought by the applicant would disproportionately direct the resources of the administration. Hence the applicant can inspect the records at the office of the Medical Director, RH/PER as per the 2(j) of the RTI Act."
To the first appeal, the Appellate Authority had furnished reply to his all questions with in the stipulated time.
As per RTI act 2005 replying questions / giving clarifications on the issues does not fall within the purview of RTI Act 2005. The petitioner's right extends only to seeking information as defined in section 2(f) either by pinpointing the file, document, paper or records, etc, or by mentioning the type of information as already be available with the specified public authority.
Hence, it is felt that the reply provided by the Appellate Authority is as per the provisions of RTI Act 2005 please."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, noted that the appellant has filed the instant second appeal against non-receipt of any reply only against point Nos. 2 to 6 and 8 to 10 of the RTI application. The information sought on these points pertained to Respondent No. 2, and they claimed that they have already provided pointwise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 07.08.2023. The respondent No. 2 has filed detailed written explanation dated 20.12.024 wherein they explained the complete facts of case and enclosed their reply dated 07.08.2024 one again. A copy of the written submission along with its enclosure were marked to the appellant.
The appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. The submissions of the respondent are taken on record.
Page 6 of 7In view of the above, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given by the respondent and interference of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Principal Chief Medical Director, IVth Floor, Moore Market Complex, Park Town, Chennai - 600003 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)