Central Information Commission
Chandan Sinha vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 30 June, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2022/647141-UM
Mr. Chandan Sinha
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Life Insurance Corporation Of India,
Nodal CPIO, Secretary(CRM), RTI Cell, CRM Department,
Northern Zonal Office, 13th Floor, Jeevan Bharati Bldg.,
124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.06.2023
Date of Decision : 30.06.2023
Date of RTI application 25.03.2022
CPIO's response 22.04.2022
Date of the First Appeal 19.05.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 01.06.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 30.08.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on points, as under:-
Page 1 of 3The CPIO, Life Insurance Corporation Of India,vide letter dated 22.04.2022furnished a reply to the Appellant.Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 01.06.2022furnished a reply to the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Chandan Sinha, present through VC Respondent: Mr. R. Vaijanthi, Assistant CPIO, present in-person The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that partial and vague information has been furnished to him. He stated that he requested information regarding policies of quarantine leave for LIC employees. He said that he further requested for the specific details of those employees of LIC who have been given any consideration in Quarantine Leave as a result of the said High Court Order, i.e. whether any LIC employee has been given Quarantine Leave when he/she himself/herself suffered from Covid 19.Page 2 of 3
The Respondent countered the claim of the Appellant by stating that the information sought by the Appellant is voluminous and she is ready to provide specific information related to any particular division.
DECISION:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by both the parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission further directs the Respondent to provide a revised reply which states that they have complied with the High Court order and no rule has been changed and no exception has been made with regard to policies/rules of quarantine leave for LIC employees, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. For the redressal of his grievance, if any, the Appellant may approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] द्वदनांक / Date: 30.06.2023 Page 3 of 3