Central Information Commission
Mr.W.S.Pawar vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 1 December, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002395/10254
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002395
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. W.S.Pawar
Ins Br III, ESIC, MIDC
SRO Marol Andheri(East)
Mumbai-400093
Respondent : Public Information Office
Sub-regional Office Marol Employees State Insurance Corporation Panchdeep Bhavan P9 road no. 7 MIDC, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 RTI application filed on : 29/03/2010 PIO replied : 16/04/2010 First appeal filed on : 06/05/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 24/05/2010 Second Appeal received on : 27/08/2010 Information Sought:
1. The salary for 29/03/2001.
2. The copy of transfer policy.
3. The guidelines regarding reimbursement of bills.
4. The copy of E.L application for the period from 15/09/2008 to 02/10/2008.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
1. He was not on duty on 29/03/2001.
2. Refer to Hqrs office letter no. C-11/15/2000-Vig dated 08/04/2004.
3. The ESI Corporation had adopted the provisions of CCS(CSMA) Rule-1944 reads with CGHS Rule applicable to the central Government . Employees as amended from time to time regarding the reimbursement of the medical claim preferred by the employees under provision of Section- 17(2) of the ESI Act.
4. The applicant had availed Commuted Leave on medical ground for the period 25/08/2008 to 23/09/2008 and joined duty on 24/09/2008. As per the letter received from B.O. Bakul dated 23/26/2009. No kind of leave was taken by him. Necessary correction had already been made in his service book and credited 18 days of E.L on 24/06/2009.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The Appellant must be provided a copy of Branch Manager Thane's letter no. 34A/RTI/WSPAWAR dated 12/04/2010.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete reply of the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. W.S.Pawar on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio; Respondent: Absent;
The Commission disused the deficiencies of the information with the Appellant. The Appellant claims that he has been harassed by the Public Authority and put to a lot of difficulty. After discussing with the Appellant the Commission comes to a conclusion that the Appellant has not been given a copy of the transfer policy sought by him in query-2.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give a copy of the transfer policy to the Appellant before 20 December 2010. In case there is no such transfer policy in place this should be stated.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 01 December 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AM)