Central Information Commission
H. S. Sadashiva vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 10 April, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
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/EPFOG/A/2023/109944
Shri H. S. Sadashiva ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Date of Hearing : 08.04.2024
Date of Decision : 08.04.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.08.2022
PIO replied on : 27.09.2022
First Appeal filed on : 27.10.2022
First Appellate Order on : 25.11.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 06.03.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.08.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"1. The date on which the medical claim was submitted to R.P.F.C.I by Sadashiva.
2. The amount admitted for reimbursement.
3. The C.G.H.S Rules, under which the amount is restricted along with work sheet.
4. The date on which full particulars of re imbursement was informed to H.S.Sadashiva as without informing him it is stated the bill is asmitted under CSMA Rules 1944.
Etc."
The CPIO vide letter dated 27.09.2022 replied as under:-
"1. Medical Claim was submitted to this Office on 25.03.2022 by Sri. HS Sadashiva
2. Rs. 12701/- was admitted for reimbursement
3. CGHS Rules is available in www.cghs.gov.in website. The Worksheet prepared is attached. To obtain Item wise CGHS package rate under CGHS Rules requisite fees of Rs.98/- may be paid under RTI for sharing the worksheet/documents.Page 1 of 4
4. The bill is processed under CSMA Rules 1944 following CGHS rate and paid on 31.03.2022. The payment of medical bills is directly credited to Pensioners Account. It was informed to applicant on - 25.05.2022 that processed bill was reimbursed as per approved CGHS Rate list.
Etc."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated 25.11.2022 stated as under:-
"Information is nay material in any form. Only such information is required to be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical question.
On many occasion the "Commission" has also ruled that there is no provision for redressal of grievances under the RTI Act. The Office records suggests that the CPIO has divulged the information available in this office. It is also noticed that no information was denied but fees under RTI Act was sought from applicant, which was not deposited and therefore further information was not shared by CPIΟ. Considering the facts, it is clear that all available information was already sent to the applicant. Since no information is pending, appeal under RTI Act, 2005 is disposed off with direction to CPIO that relevant copy shall be provided to applicant within 5 days of the receipt of requisite fees."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 02.04.2024 has been received from the CPIO, RO Mysuru and same has been taken on record. The relevant extract whereof as under :
Kindly refer to the notice cited. The chronology of events are as follows:
Sri. H S Sadashiva, EO (Retd.), Appellant has submitted Medical Bill for Rs. 20914/- on 25.03.2022 and the same was settled within a week for Rs.12701/- on 31.03.2022.
The amount was also credited to the Appellant's Account on the same day i.e. on 31.03.2022.
Subsequently, the Appellant vide letter dated 06.05.2022 has claimed that the Medical bill has not been admitted for re-imbursement. RO, Mysuru vide letter dated 25.05.2022 informed that as per extant rules, maximum admissible amount has been reimbursed under CSMA Rules and also informed that the hospital has charged more than the CGHS approved rate list and hence the claim was restricted to CGHS approved rates.Page 2 of 4
The Appellant again vide letter dated 20.06.2022 requested to reimburse the amount in full.
In response, RO, Mysuru vide letter dated 11.07.2022 again informed that the medical claims have been processed with due care and maximum admissible amount has been reimbursed on the basis of CS (MA) Rules issued by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India and Head Office Circular dated 16.06.2014.
Thereafter the Appellant submitted RTI application on 02.09.2022. The reply was given on 28.09.2022.
Thereafter, the First Appeal was made on 28.10.2022 and reply was sent on 25.11.2022.
In the context of RTI, it is to submit that no information was denied to the Appellant. Fees under RTI Act was sought from the Appellant for copy of item-wise CGHS package rate under CGHS Rules, which was not deposited and therefore copy of 49 pages could not be shared. However, the URL of Ministry website (www.cghs.gov.in) was shared with Appellant for his convenience.
And to facilitate the Appellant, copy of the worksheet for calculation of the Medical Bill was also provided.
DDO has to follow the rules mentioned in the concerned Scheme. Moreover, authority is rule bound to follow circular issued by EPFO in this regard. The claims are being attended by following the extant rule/directions communicated by Head Office vide Circular dated 16.06.2014.
Office is disbursing salary to Staff and Pension to all Pensioners. The Medical Claim are also being disbursed as per procedure. Since all settlement are through e-mode, there is no procedure to separately intimate the Appellant. On earlier occasions also, intimation was not sent to the Appellant.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video -conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Suman Saurav, CPIO/RPFC-II, RO Mysuru The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that the reply furnished by the PIO is false and misleading. He stated that the OM/Circular cannot overrule the rules under CS(MA)Rules 1944. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish complete information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly furnished to the Appellant. He stated that the Appellant has submitted Medical Bill for Rs. 20914/- on 25.03.2022 and the same was settled within a week for Rs.12701/- on 31.03.2022. Furthermore, the amount was also credited to the Appellant's Account on the same day i.e. on 31.03.2022. He stated that RO, Mysuru vide letter dated 25.05.2022 has informed the Appellant that as per extant rules, maximum admissible amount has been reimbursed under CS(MA) Rules and Page 3 of 4 also informed that the hospital has charged more than the CGHS approved rate list and hence the claim was restricted to CGHS approved rates.
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 Appellant, 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 of 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 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)