Central Information Commission
Msk Chitra vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 11 March, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/000478/4738
11 March 2014
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. K. Chitra
W.H.R.A.- 126,
Gossaikunnu West,
Kuriachira P.O., Thrissur-680006
Respondent : CPIO
ESIC
Panchdeep Bhawan,
CIG Marg, New Delhi-110002
RTI application filed on : 30/10/2012
PIO replied on : 26/12/2012 & 04/01/2013
First appeal filed on : 15/12/2012
First Appellate Authority order : 28/12/2012
Second Appeal dated : 15/01/2013
Information sought:
The applicant wants the following information:-
1. What is the Scale of Pay of Insurance Inspector [now Social Security Officer] as on 01.01.1996 after implementation of 5th CPC scales?
2. Name of the Post and Scale of pay of two hierarchical promotional posts for which Insurance Inspector [now Social Security Officer] is eligible under ACP Scheme as on 09.08.1999
3. What is the revised scale of pay of Insurance Inspector [now Social Security Officer] implemented with effect from 21.04.2004?
4. Whether any consequential change was made in the Scale of Pay of next promotional posts of then Insurance Inspector [now Social Security Officer]?
5. The date from which direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Director/ Manager Grade I was stopped?
6. In case the post of Assistant Director/ Manager Grade I are filled up by promotion/ Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, the name of feeder post and criteria?
7. Whether the post of Insurance Inspector [now Social Security Officer] and Manager GradeI/ Assistant Director continues to be feeder and promotional post even after up-gradation of Insurance Scale of pay with effect from 21.04.2004?
8. What is the pay Band and Grade Pay of Insurance Inspector [now Social Security Officer] on implementation of 6th CPC Scale with effect from 01.01.2006?
9. Whether the pre-revised scale of pay of Insurance Inspector [now Social Security Officer] was up-graded to Rs. 7450-225-11500 for grant of fixation benefit and grade pay of Rs.
4600 with effect from 01.01.2006 as per Government of India, Ministry of finance OM No. F-No.1/1/2008-IC dated 13.11.2009?
Page 1 of 210. Whether the post of Assistant Director/Manager Grade I was up-graded to the pre-revised scale of Pay Rs. 7500-250-12000 for grant of fixation benefit and Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 with effect from 01.01.2006?
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Mukundan appellant's representative through VC Respondent: Mr. S P Pandey CPIO's representative The appellant's representative stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided under point 9 & 10 of the RTI application dated 30/10/2012. He further stated that it can be seen from the Memo dated 08/12/2009 & the letter dated 26/10/2009 issued to the Joint Director, Kolam that the post of assistant director was upgraded to the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.7500-250- 12000/- for grant of fixation benefit and the grade pay of Rs.4800/- w.e.f. 01/01/2006. The CPIO's representative stated that matter has already been clarified in para 4 of the letter dated 26/10/2009 that the grade pay of Rs.4800/- has been granted to the assistant director since the scale of Section Officer has been revised in the Central Secretariat corresponding to the Rs.7500- 250-12000/- in the revised scale of Rs.9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4800/- in PB 2, however, it does not mention of any fixation benefit since the pay of assistant director has not been revised prior to 01/01/2006. The appellant's representative stated that there was delay in supplying the information under point 5 & 6. The CPIO's representative explained that the bulk of the information was provided timely and the information relating to point 5&6 was supplied immediately after the FAA's order dated 28/12/2012. He vehemently pleaded that there was no intent whatsoever to delay or deny any information to the appellant.
Decision notice:
The information has been provided to the appellant.
As regards the delay pointed out by the appellant's representative it cannot be said that the CPIO had obstructed or acted in a manner so as to deliberately block the provision of the information sought by the appellant, however, the CPIO is advised to exercise due care for future and ensure that information is provided timely to the RTI applicant's as per the provisions of the Act.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2