Central Information Commission
Neeraj vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 29 April, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा /Second Appeal No. CIC/ESICO/A/2025/116712
Neeraj ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Employees State Insurance Corporation
Hyderabad ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 28/04/2026
Date of Decision : 28/04/2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Ashutosh Chaturvedi
Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:
RTI application filed on 21/02/2025
CPIO replied on 29/03/2025
First appeal filed on 02/04/2025
FAA's order dated Not on Record
Second Appeal dated 17/05/2025
Information sought:
The appellant has filed RTI application dated 21/02/2025 seeking the following information:
"1. Please confirm whether recovery of Rs.619106 was done from the establishment against above code vide your notice no TS/INS- 1/890/52200550630021018 dated 27-11-2020. Letter of establishment is enclosed for your reference.
2. Securitrans India Private Limited is paying overtime in a huge amount to the workers as they do not observe any weekly off to the custodians filling cash in the ATMs and do not pay ESI contribution on the overtime allowances, please Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/ESICO/A/2025/116712 Page 1 of 3 provide details when inspection of the establishment was conducted by your office as they are paying short contribution.
3. Provide name post and address of the officers who are responsible for not conduction inspection of the said establishment.
4. This may be treated as complaint by the Registered trade union of the establishment and provide date of inspection of the establishment by the SSOs of your office.
5. Provide date of inspection conducted in the establishment after 2020 and how much recovery was claimed and deposited by the establishment...."
2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant on 29/03/2025 stated as:
"Points 1 to 5: The complaint and its connected queries do not conform to the definition of 'information' as provided under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005, and hence information cannot be provided.
The RTI Application stands disposed of."
3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant filed the First Appeal with the first Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority order is not on record.
4. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed the Instant Second Appeal on 17/05/2025.
Written Submission of the Respondent dated 10/03/2026 is taken on record
5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Sridhar Jatla Assistant Director/CPIO participated in the hearing on VC The Appellant has not availed the opportunity to participate in the hearing despite due notice of hearing. The Respondent submits that the information sought in the RTI application involved third-party information. Accordingly, the provisions relating to third-party consultation under Section 11 of the RTI Act were invoked. He further apprises the bench that they sought the views/consent of the concerned third-party regarding disclosure of the requested information vide e-mails dated 18.03.2025 and 27.03.2025. The concerned third party submitted its response vide e-mail dated 27.03.2025, wherein it did not consent to the disclosure of the requested information to the RTI applicant.Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/ESICO/A/2025/116712 Page 2 of 3
DECISION Commission, on the basis of submission of the Respondent during hearing and perusal of case records, observes that the CPIO had initially not taken the appropriate ground of exemption while denying information. Therefore, the Commission directs the concerned CPIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised reply, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission within 7 days thereafter. In doing so, PIO must make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the appellant and same must be redacted as per section 10 of the RTI Act. No further action lies.
The Appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशु तोष चतु वदी) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) िदनां क/ Date: 28.04.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Singh Meena (राम िसंह मीना) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011- 26715467 Address of the Parties:
1. CPIO, Employees State Insurance Corporation, 5-9-23, Panchdeep Bhawan, Hill fort Road, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad 500063, Telangana
2. Neeraj Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/ESICO/A/2025/116712 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)