Central Information Commission
Smt. Netravati M. Adibatti vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 15 March, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ESICO/A/2023/609949
Smt. Netravati M. Adibatti ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Employees State Insurance Corporation ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.03.2024
Date of Decision : 13.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.11.2022
PIO replied on : 28.11.2022
First Appeal filed on : 28.12.2022
First Appellate Order on : 28.12.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 27.02.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.11.2022 seeking information about her husband Dr. Mallikarjun Adibatti, employed as Associate Professor of Anatomy at ESIC Medical College and PGIMSR, Chennai on the following points:-
"With reference to the above mentioned subject and the attached file I hereby request you to provide the information about the points mentioned in the attached letter as early as possible as it is required to file court cases to 1) To enter the name of my son Atharv M Adibatti in the service records of Dr. Mallikarjun Adibatti who is the father of Atharv M Adibatti 2) To get maintainance for the son of Dr. Mallikarjun Adibatti who is born on 20.10.2014 under CrPC 125. I will pay the requisite amount. Kindly provide the information with reference to the attached RTI letter and oblige."
The CPIO vide reply dated 28.11.2022 forwarded the RTI application.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.12.2022. The FAA vide reply dated 28.12.2022forwarded the appeal to concerned FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 1 of 2Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri S Karupuswamy - CPIO is heard through video conference. The Respondent stated that information sought by the Appellant had been duly provided to her vide reply dated 30.03.2023, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act. Since copy of the reply is not on record, the Respondent sought a day's time to submit the same before the Commission. The Appellant mentioned that she had not been provided salary slips of her husband, though his gross monthly income had been communicated to the Appellant.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that the Respondent had duly furnished appropriate response to the Appellant, on the basis of information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Since information which is not exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant, there is no legal infirmity in the action of the PIO. In so far as the Appellant's grievance redressal is concerned, it does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act, hence, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya ( ) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2