Central Information Commission
Vanniaperumal A vs National Institute For Empowerment Of ... on 1 April, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NIEPM/A/2023/616318
Shri Vanniaperumal A ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, National Institute for Empowerment of ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Persons with Multiple Disabilities
Date of Hearing : 27.03.2024
Date of Decision : 27.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.02.2023
PIO replied on : 03.03.2023
First Appeal filed on : 03.03.2023
First Appellate Order on : 27.03.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 31.03.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.02.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"It is gathered that relatives/family members of permanent/ temporary/contract staff are employed/engaged as permanent/temporary/contract staff. The following information are required department wise.
1. Name and designation of the permanent/temporary/contract staff / consultant whose family member/relative are employed/engaged as permanent/temporary/contract staff/consultant.
2. Name and designation of such relative/family member engaged as permanent/temporary/contract staff/consultant, date of employment/engagement.
3. Copy of policy/rules framed or permission of competent authority in employment/engagement of such relative/family member."
The CPIO, National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Multiple Disabilities vide letter dated 03.03.2023 replied as under:-
"1. Disclosure of information exempted Under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act 2005 Page 1 of 3
2. -do-
3. No information available NIEPMD"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 27.03.2023stated as under:-
"1. As per our record Dr. K. Balabaskar is serving as Lecturer (Adult Independent Living) and his wife Smt. B. Leelavathi, is serving as Lecturer (Special Education Db). As regards of contractual staff is concerned all are being engaged as per approval of EC through proper advertisement. In the application forms there is no such coloumn available to mentioned relative details working at NIEPMD.
2. -do-
3. No such rules/policy is exist."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the CPIO, National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Multiple Disabilities vide letter dated 19.03.2024 which has been taken on record.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri M Rajesh, Information Media Officer The Appellant reiterated his written submission dated 19.03.2024, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
10. Mrs. Molly Philip, wife of Dr. A. Amamath, Deputy Registrar in charge and head of Social Work department is engaged on contract basis for more than a decade. It is well known to everybody. Ms. Bapina Kumar Rout engaged as Assn. Professor (Prosthetic & Orthotic) on contract basis is reportedly the relative of Dr. Nachiketa Rout, Director of the Institute. There are reportedly many staff related to each other. The contract staff/permanent staff are under the control of public authority (NIEPMD) and the requested information are under his control. Hence, the reply given by FAA is evasive. The denial of information by CPIO under section.8 (1) (d) is not justified as the information is not relating to any harm to the competitive position of a third party. The contract employees are not third parties.
11. Contract employees are engaged for more than a decade continuously.
Hence, it is imperative to make disclosures about them as per Section.4, Sub Section (1) (b) (ix) of RTI of Act 2005 Page 2 of 3
12. The copy of counter statement to second appeal is not received by me till date.
I pray the Honorable Chief information Commissioner to pass orders to provide me the requested information, as information is vital for transparency in administration considering what is stated in Section.4 sub section (1) (b) (ix) of RTI Act, 2005.
Shri M Rajesh stated that in points 1 and 2 the Appellant is seeking personal information of third parties which is exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j). He also acknowledged that in the reply earlier provided by the CPIO exemption u/s 8 (1) (d) was incorrectly claimed and tendered his unconditional apology for the same. Regarding point no 3, he stated that no such policy/ rules exist on their record.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in this matter.
The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off as such.
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 of 3