Central Information Commission
Raveen R. R. vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 14 March, 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/ESICO/A/2023/116543
Shri Raveen R. R. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Employees State Insurance Corporation
Date of Hearing : 12.03.2024
Date of Decision : 12.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.07.2022
PIO replied on : 10.08.2022
First Appeal filed on : 11.08.2022
First Appellate Order on : 12.09.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 17.04.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"(a) As per Section 17(2)(a) of ESI Act 1948, it is stated that "The recruitment, salary and allowances, discipline and other conditions of service of staff of ESIC in accordance with the rules and orders applicable to the officers and employees of the Central Govt. drawing corresponding scales of pay, then do all DoPT orders are applicable to ESIC or not?
(b) If yes, does ESIC need to adopt it by it's separate orders or not?
(c) If yes for (b), does ESIC.notify all such orders?
(d) If no for (b), does it mean that all DoPT orders are automatically applicable to ESIC?
(e) If no for (a), Does ESIC issue own orders in line with DoPT orders?
(f) If no for (e), the reason thereof ?
(g) If no for (e), does it mean all DoPT orders are not applicable to ESIC?
Etc."
The CPIO vide letter dated 10.08.2022 replied as under:-
"The information sought by the applicant is clarificatory in nature. Hence, the same is not available in material form."Page 1 of 4
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.08.2022. The FAA vide order dated 12.09.2022 stated as under:-
"In this regard, the concerned DPIO/CPIO is directed to review this application/appeal and the information which is available on record should be given to the appellant within 10 days. Also, in case of not giving information, the applicant should be informed by describing the appropriate RTI section."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
PIO, RTI Cell furnished reply provided by establishment branch-III vide email dated 18.11.2022, as under :
इस संबंध में सूचित चिया जाता है चि आवेदि िी अपील िी आरटीआई अनुबंधों िे अंतर्गत पुनः जांि िी र्ई और यह पाया र्या चि आवेदि द्वारा आरटीआई में डीओपीटी िे िायागलय ज्ञापन संख्या- 28020/1/2010-Estt. (L) चदनांि 17.08.2016 िा मख्ु यालय िे पतू संख्या-ए- 12/16/2/2017-Exam चदनांि 12.04.2018 में उल्लेख नहीं होने िे बारे में जानिारी मांर्ी र्यी है | चजसिा चि स्थापना शाखा-3 से िोई संबंध नहीं है। अतः अनुरोध है चि संबंचधत शाखा से आवेदि द्वारा मांर्ी र्यी जानिारी िो उपलब्ध िराने िे चलए संपिग िरें ।
Written submission dated 01.03.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video conferencing.
Respondent: 1. Mr. Maninder (Assistant) - Representative of CPIO
2. Mr. Sudeep Bajpai, AD- Representative of CPIO.
3. Jyoti Srivastav, AD The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that he had sought clarification with respect to whether all DoPT orders are applicable to ESIC or not and matters related thereto. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish the information as sought.
The Respondent stated that queries raised in the instant RTI Application is clarificatory in nature and same do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act. He stated that the information sought by the Appellant is not available in their record in material form and same has been duly communicated to the Appellant.
Decision:
Page 2 of 4At 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.
The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as the Appellant has sought clarifications/inferences from the CPIO. In this regard, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Emphasis Supplied Commission deems it expedient to highlight that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of Page 3 of 4 India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011] has held as under:
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
In view of the above, the Commission notes that an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
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