Central Information Commission
Mr.P K Behera vs Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare on 19 August, 2010
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2010/000110
CIC/AD/C/2010/000112
CIC/AD/C/2010/000116
Dated August 19, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri P.K.Behera
Name of the Public Authority : M/o Health & Family Welfare
Background
CIC/AD/C/2010/000110
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.7.8.09 with the CPIO, M/o Health & Family Welfare. He invited the PIO's attention to the application dt.6.7.09 addressed to Secretary, M/o Health & Family Welfare regarding revision of pay scale as per the 5th and 6th Pay Commission and merger of 50% DA with basic pay for the IDVC project staff who receive salary on graded scales of pay and on consolidated pay whose pay is determined with reference to the scale of corresponding post as the same have already been extended to daily wage workers of IDVC project. In this context, he requested for information on the action taken against the application dt.6.7.09 On not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.30.11.09 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2010/000112
2. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.16.10.09 with the CPIO, M/o Health & Family Welfare seeking the following information:
i) Certified copy of the D.O Letter dt.23.10.2000
ii) Certified copy of the clarification given by ICMR along with all the enclosures in response to
the D.O Letter dt.23.10.2000
iii) Certified copies of all the correspondences/file noting/comments/clarification exchanged
between Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Ministry of Finance and ICMR in File No.V.25011/55/978 or any other file on the matter of regularization of staffs working in long term projects of ICMR including IDVC from Jan.1990 to Sept.2009 On not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.27.11.09 before CIC. CIC/AD/C/2010/000116
3. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.1.10.09 with the CPIO, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare seeking certified copies of letters regarding 5th Pay Commission, 4th Pay Commission and bonus. On not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.30.11.09 before CIC.
4. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing on August 19, 2010.
5. Shri J.P.Mehta, CPIO & Deputy Secretary and Shri Mohd. Saleem represented the Public Authority.
6. The Complainant was present during the hearing.
Decision CIC/AD/C/2010/000110
7. The Commission received a rejoinder dt.19.8.10 from Shri J.P.Mehta, CPIO who submitted that the RTI application was received on 6.9.09 and that the then CPIO Shri M.M.Lal, had since retired on superannuation on 31.8.09. He stated that his successor Shri T.S.Negi had taken over charge only on 22.9.09 and that he too had retired on 31.7.10. Thus there was no CPIO during the interim period from 1.9.09 to 22.9.10. Hence, the said letter dt.24.8.09 was not readily available and was therefore not in the knowledge of Shri Negi and therefore, no action could taken on this letter . Shri J.P.Mehta further added that on receipt of the first appeal, the Appellate Authority vide his reply dt.25.3.10 had replied that the grant of Temporary Status to the Casual Workers in different field units of IDVC Project was considered consequent upon the direction of CAT's order dt.11.5.05.
8. The Commission on review of the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the records holds that the Respondent had not given specific information against the queries in the RTI application. Accordingly, the PIO is directed to provide specific information against each point to the Complainant by 20.9.10 and the Complainant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 26.9.10. CIC/AD/A/2010/000112
9. The Commission received a rejoinder dt.19.8.10 from Shri J.P.Mehta, CPIO who submitted that the RTI application was received on 6.9.09. He added that the then CPIO Shri M.M.Lal has since retired on superannuation on 31.8.09, and that his successor Shri T.S.Negi had taken over charge only on 22.9.09 and that he too had retired on 31.7.10. Thus there was no CPIO during the interim period from 1.9.09 to 22.9.10. He added that an interim reply was sent to the Complainant on 31.12.09 after due date as the RTI application receipt was lying with the section unattended and was found while scrutinizing the receipts by Under Secretary and given to the then CPIO, Shri T.S.Negi. Since the file No.V.25011/55/97 of 1997 was not readily available and had to be located, ICMR was requested on 15.3.10 and 10.5.10 to provide the documents if available with them. Copies of some documents from ICMR were received vide their letter dt.31.5.10 and since some documents were short, ICMR was again requested on 2.6.10 to provide the missing documents and these were received from ICMR on 11.6.10 and the same were forwarded to the Complainant on 21.6.10. The Respondent further added that the concerned file is not available in the section and therefore it is not possible to provide the copies of documents against the remaining points. However, efforts are continuing to locate/trace and get hold of that file and as soon as the same is located , information against the remaining points would be provided to the Appellant. The Complainant submitted that against point 1 only one of the two pages had been provided and against point 2, information was not attested. Shri J.P.Mehta assured the Complainant that he would provide the attested copies .
10. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides directs the PIO to provide the missing page against point 1 and to attest the documents supplied against point 2. With regard to point 3, the PIO is directed to determine whether the file has been weeded out or not and if so to provide the Complainant with a copy of the rule for preservation of such records along with the relevant page indicating the date of weeding of such records. If not weeded out but the PIO is unable to locate the same, an FIR to be registered with the Police and a copy of the FIR to be shared with the Appellant. Information to be provided if the file is located. In any event, information to reach the Appellant by 25 September, 2010.
CIC/AD/C/2010/000116
11. The Commission received a rejoinder dt.19.8.10 from Shri J.P.Mehta, CPIO who submitted that the RTI application was received on 6.9.09. He added that the then CPIO shri M.M.Lal retired on superannuation on 31.8.09 and his successor Shri T.S.Negi took charge only on 22.9.09 and that he too had retired on 31.7.10. The PIO who had taken over charge on 1 st August, 2010, also did not recollect having seen this RTI application. He added that when the hearing notice was received, all efforts were made by the concerned staff in the section under the supervision of senior officers to trace/locate file No.V.25011/87/98R and No.V.25011/56/04R in which the documents sought by the Complainant would be available. However, the files remained untraceable. Therefore, ICMR was contacted in the matter to provide copies of the documents sought by the Complainant in his RTI application. Accordingly, the following documents could be located by ICMR and passed on to the CPIO:
i) letter No.V.25011/87/98R dt.4/10.8.98
ii) Subsequent letters of even numbers dt.5.1.99, 23.2.99 and 9.4.99 regarding 5th Pay
Commission
Copies of these documents were then provided to the Complainant on 16.8.10.
12. The Commission after reviewing the submission by the Respondent observed that information against point 1 has been provided and directs the PIO to provide the information sought against points 2 and 3 to the Complainant. The PIO is directed to determine whether the said files had been weeded out or not and if weeded out to provide the Complainant with a copy of the rule for preservation of such records along with the relevant page from the concerned register indicating the date of weeding out of the files. If not weeded out, the information to be provided to the Complainant. The PIO is also directed to file an FIR with the police if the files have been lost and not weeded out. A copy of the FIR may be provided to the Complainant. The entire exercise to be completed by 25.9.10 and the Complainant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 30.9.10.
13. The Commission on review of the explanation submitted by Shri J.P.Mehta, the present CPIO, noted that there was considerable delay in responding to the RTI applications by the then CPIO, Shri T.S.Negi. However, since he has already retired, the Commission sees no point in issuing a show cause notice to him at this stage.
14. The Complaints are disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri P.K.Behera General Secretary MRCPE Association Sector 5 Rourkela Sundargarh 769 002 Orissa
2. The PIO Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department of Health Research Nirman Bhawan New Delhi
3. Officer incharge, NIC