Central Information Commission
G S Lamba vs Indian Council Of Medical ... on 17 June, 2021
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint Nos. CIC/ICOMR/C/2019/125833
CIC/ICOMR/C/2019/125838
CIC/ICOMR/C/2019/125846
Shri G.S.Lamba ... शिकायतकताा /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO ...प्रशतवादीगण /Respondent
Indian Council of Medical Research,
V.Ramalinga Swami Bhawan,
Ansari Nagar, P.B.No.4911,
New Delhi - 110029
Date of Hearing : 17.06.2021
Date of Decision : 17.06.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on dated
125833 11.01.2019 27.02.2019 22.02.2019 02.04.2019 30.05.2019
125838 11.01.2019 27.02.2019 25.02.2019 02.04.2019 30.05.2019
125846 11.01.2019 27.02.2019 21.02.2019 02.04.2019 30.05.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/ICOMR/C/2019/125833 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.02.2019 seeking information on the following points:
1. The Complainant vide letter dated 04.6.2018 and 12.06.2018 addressed to Director, ICMR-II, requested to provide him the attested copy of Security Page 1 of 4 Guards attendance register from 1.7.2017 to 19.04.2018 which is maintained in ICMR-II and where all the 06 guards mark their attendance. The Complainant enquired as to why he had not been given any reply to the above stated letters.
2. The Complainant referred to letter No.05/9/7/Misc/2018 Nut dated 9.7.2018 sent by office of Head of Nutrition, ICMR on 08.12.2018 which was received by him on 11.12.2018 (i.e. after 5 months). The Complainant therefore sought copy of attendance register maintained by ICMR-II in which security guards mark their attendance from 1.7.2017 to 19.04.2017.
The CPIO vide letter dated 27.02.2019 informed the Complainant that the letter referred in point number 1 was not received by ICMR till date and advised him to provide a copy of the same for necessary action. With regard to query No. 2, the Complainant was informed that concerned agency has been requested to provide the information directly to the Complainant.
Dissatisfied with the information received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 22.02.2019. The FAA vide order dated 02.04.2019 inter alia stated that no information was available with regard to Complainant's letter dated 04.06.2018 and 12.06.2018. With regard to point no 2 it was stated that no register was maintained by the ICMR and the same was maintained by the Security Agency hence Appellant's RTI was transferred to them.
(2) CIC/ICOMR/C/2019/125838 The Complainant filed an RTI application on 7 points dated 11.01.2019 inter alia seeking to know as to why the administration of ICMR did not want to meet him on 24.12.2018 when he visited the office of ICMR and why he was not allowed to talk with PIO/PRO of ICMR and why he was insulted by Security Supervisor as he came to ICMR to obtain information about RTI, etc. The CPIO vide letter dated 27.02.2019 informed the Complainant that as per Right to Information Act, 2005, the CPIO is required to provide information as available with him in the form of O.M., notification, rules, regulations, orders, letters and circulars etc. queries/clarification or interpretation of information is out of the preview of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the information received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 22 .02.2019. The FAA vide order dated 02.04.2019 concurred with the response of the CPIO and provided point wise reply against the First Appeal to the Complainant.
(3) CIC/ICOMR/C/2019/125846 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.01.2019 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Page 2 of 41. Complete attested photocopy of the all payment bills including ESI challans, PF challans etc. that had been submitted by Prashant Parmar Security Agency to the ICMR, New Delhi to get the salary of security guards working in the ICMR w.e.f. 1.08.2017 to 31.05.2018.
2. All payment details given to Prashant Parmar Security Agency by the ICMR, New Delhi to give the salary of security guards working in the ICMR.
3. Names of Ex-serviceman Guards and civilian guards separately month wise w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to June, 2018 that is maintained by ICMR in their record.
4. More than 40 guards were terminated from service in the ICMR w.e.f. 1st July, 2017 to 30th April, 2018 - details of names alongwith their Army rank with their enrolment date and termination date from security guard duty.
The CPIO vide letter dated 27.02.2019 informed the Complainant that information with regard to termination of guards is not available with the CPIO. They are being engaged through the agency and not by ICMR and it is the prerogative of the agency to deploy manpower in ICMR. The Complainant was further asked to deposit Rs. 60/- and Rs. 48/- to obtain copies of bills/payments and also list of guards etc. Dissatisfied with the information received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 21.02.2019. The FAA vide order dated 02.04.2019 provided a point wise reply against the First Appeal to the Complainant.
Facts emerging during the hearing In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Complainant participated in the hearing through audio conference. While stating that his grievance regarding pending dues has been settled now, the Complainant stated that his RTI applications were not satisfactorily answered. Therefore, he prayed to the Commission to direct the Respondent to ensure that the RTI applications are appropriately dealt with in future.
The Respondent represented by Dr R Laxminarayanan, DDG (Admin) participated in the hearing through audio conference. While reiterating the CPIO's replies, he stated that although the Complainant's grievance has been settled before the Labour Commissioner in 2019, their department would duly assist the Complainant in case he wants any further information in future.
Page 3 of 4Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the fact that the grievance of the Complainant has been settled at this stage, no further intervention of the Commission is required in this matter. Although the Commission was not able to infer any malafide intent on the part of the Respondent, the Commission however directs the Respondent Public Authority to ensure that RTI applications are appropriately replied to after carefully examining the queries raised therein.
With the above observations, the instant Complaints stand disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाशणत सत्याशित प्रशत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. शिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4