Amit Malik vs Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare on 18 December, 2023

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Amit Malik vs Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare on 18 December, 2023

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                   के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                                बाबागंगनाथमार्ग, मुनिरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                            नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.         CIC/MH&FW/A/2022/660576

Shri Amit Malik                                               ... अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                       ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare

Date of Hearing                           :   18.12.2023
Date of Decision                          :   18.12.2023
Chief Information Commissioner            :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :           16.09.2022
PIO replied on                    :           13.10.2022, 04.11.2022
First Appeal filed on             :           30.10.2022
First Appellate Order on          :           01.11.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd
                                  :           17.11.2022


Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.09.2022 seeking information as under:

1. Tell the rules and regulation of the transfer of the post of pharmacist contractual/temporary?

2. When the contractual/temporary Pharmacist was appointed, has any contractual/temporary pharmacist been transferred, if so, under which rules it comes?

3. What are the policies for the safety of women in your CMSS, if there is tampering with any female employee in your department then what are the rules and regulations of CMSS for that?

4. What are the policies for renewal of extension of any contractual/temporary employee in CMSS in your department after completion of 5 years of contract and how many times extension renewal can be done after completion of maximum 5 years.

The CPIO, Central Medical Services Society, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare furnished reply vide letter dated 13.10.2022 however, the same was not received Page 1 of 3 by the Appellant, therefore the reply was furnished again by the PIO vide letter dated 04.11.2022, as under:

1. Reply: NA

2. Reply:- Question Not clear

3. Reply :- As per GOI guidelines

4. Reply:- As per the RR of the Post Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.10.2022. FAA on 01.11.2022 provided the speed post tracking details of the reply sent to the Appellant.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Written submission dated 13.12.2023 has been received from the CPIO reiterating the aforementioned facts.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

The following were present :

Appellant: Present via VC Respondent: 1. Mr. Anirudh Singh, Manager (Admin)/CPIO

2. Mr. R.C. Nayak Nodal Officer, Admin.

The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He submitted that the information has not been furnished within stipulated time frame as per the provisions of RTI Act.

The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information has been duly furnished to the Appellant from their official record. He further stated that the reply was furnished within stipulated time frame vide letter dated 13.10.2022. However, since the reply dated 13.10.2022 was not received by the Appellant, the reply was furnished again by the PIO vide letter dated 04.11.2022.

Decision:

At 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.

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the Page 2 of 3 provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers and giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission