Central Information Commission
Mrbipin Kumar vs Ministry Of Labour & Employment on 2 December, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/002684/9131
02 December 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Bipin Kumar
EPFO, 171, Green Park,
Sahota Complex Near Bus Stand,
Jalandhar Punjab - 144001
Respondent : CPIO / Deputy Director (Rectt.)
ESIC
Headquarters Office,
Panchdeep Bhawan: C.I.G. Marg:
New Delhi - 02
RTI application filed on : 27/01/2014
PIO replied on : 21/03/2014
First appeal filed on : 27/03/2014
First Appellate Authority order : 23/06/2014
Second Appeal dated : 18/11/2014
Information sought:
The applicant was a regular/permanent employee of EPFO completed 3 years of regular services in the year 2013. Can he get age relaxation benefit in already notified recruitment notification 2014 for the post of SSO in ESIC? Provide reply at the earliest i.e. 20/02/2014 being a candidate, the applicant has to apply for the post of SSO 2014 in ESIC.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Ms. Anita Suresh CPIO, Mr. Rajesh Joshi & Mr. Yogesh Saini The appellant was given an opportunity to participate in the hearing but he is absent. The CPIO stated that copy of relevant rule has been supplied to the appellant vide letter dated 21/03/2014 and the matter has been further clarified by the FAA vide order dated 23/06/2014. She submitted that the appellant is asking for information of interrogatory nature which is not covered by the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision notice:
At the outset it is clarified that the CPIO, under the RTI Act, is required to furnish information/documents as available on record; however, eliciting answers to queries, redressal of Page 1 of 2 grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act.
The CPIO has submitted that the information has been supplied. The appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to canvass his case/contest the CPIO's submissions. In the above circumstances we are unable to provide any relief.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2