Central Information Commission
Urmila Devi vs Directorate General Of Labour & ... on 10 January, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DGLHQ/C/2023/640950
Ms. URMILA DEVI निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Directorate General of Labour & Welfare, Head
Quarter
Date of Hearing : 08.01.2025
Date of Decision : 08.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.05.2023
PIO replied on : 22.08.2023
First Appeal filed on : Nil
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Kindly Ensure Me Status Of My Insurance Claim Under Scheme Of Eshram Card (785479991106 Name As Radheyshyam) Complaint No . Lb181071 Which Has Been Pending Since October 2022 ."
The CPIO, Directorate General of Labour & Welfare, Head Quarter furnished reply dated 22.08.2023 as under:-
"The Government is already in the process of finalizing the modalities for providing the benefits of accidental death and accidental claims to the eligible claimants under eShram Portal. The same will be communicated to worker, claimant in due course of time.
Page 1 The claimants are requested to register their case in the Grievance management portal."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 27.12.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
3. In brief, factual position of the case is submitted below:
Ministry of Labour & Employment (MoLE) announced to provide accidental insurance cover through" Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana" to eShram registrants during the first year of the scheme but the same could not be materialised due to Technical issues. Subsequently, as per approved EFC Memorandum and after obtaining approval of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, eShram ex- gratia guidelines was issued on 24th August, 2023 (copy enclosed) and ex-gratia module launched on 30th August, 2023 by the Ministry of Labour and Employment (MoLE) to provide benefit in the form of one time ex-gratia payment to those people who got registered on eShram during the first year of launch of portal for the period from 26th August, 2021 to 31st March, 2022 and also met with an accident resulting in death or permanent disability of the unorganised worker during the aforementioned period.
4. In the instant case, exact date of accident of the eShram registrant was not mentioned properly in the online complaint/application filed by the appellant in January, and May 2023. In this regard, it is also submitted that the complaint No. LB181071 was generated on 28.01.2023 and closed by the Ministry on 13.10.2023 and a SMS was sent to the complainant with the following text message" Ministry of Labour & Employment has launched ex-gratia module and issued guidelines for settlement of claims eligible eShram registrants under accidental death / disability subject to meeting eligibility conditions, you may contact concerned District Magistrate Office". As such, non closure of complaint No. LB181071 registered on eShram portal against the eShram card 785479991106 in respect of Shri Radhey Shyam is not correct.
5. In view of the above, it is very clear that one time payment of ex-gratia claim under eShram is subject to fulfilling terms and conditions mentioned in the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment (MoLE). The Appellant/Complainant may please refer the ex-
Page 2 gratia guidelines issued by MoLE for the accidental death and disability claim under eShram and may prefer further action in accordance with the aforesaid guidelines. It is also available in public domain on the eShram website.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Sudip Dutta, CPIO- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant. He further stated that exact date of accident of the eShram registrant was not mentioned properly in the online complaint/application filed by the appellant in January, and May 2023. Furthermore, complaint No. LB181071 was generated on 28.01.2023 and closed by the Ministry on 13.10.2023 and a SMS was sent to the Complainant with the following text message" Ministry of Labour & Employment has launched ex-gratia module and issued guidelines for settlement of claims eligible eShram registrants under accidental death / disability subject to meeting eligibility conditions, you may contact concerned District Magistrate Office.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of Page 3 information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies.
Page 4 The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)