Central Information Commission
Dr.A.K. Bhatnagar vs Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare on 31 October, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002291/15375
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002291
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Sh. A. K. Bhatnagar
Retd. Senior Physiotherapist,
G-16, Hauz Khas Enclave, 1st Floor,
G, Block Market, New Delhi - 110016.
Respondent : Mr. Laxmi Narayan,
PIO, O/o The Deputy Director Admn.
CGHS - I, Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
RTI application filed on : 11-04-2011
PIO replied on : 22-06-2011
First Appeal filed on : 10-06-2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 18-07-2011
Second Appeal received on : 23-08-2011
Information sought:
"I wish to draw your kind attention that following information was given to me by the Ministrv of Health, DGHS, and CGHS under RTI Act:
1. "That the 8000-33500 pay scale was granted to me on 1.1.1996, following the CAT judgement order dated 13.2.98 in OA2261\1994 and 5th Pay Commission recommendation were implemented by the Government of India. This information was given to me vide letters no. 35\DS (MS\L\2007 dated 5.1 .2007, C13014\04\2007-CGHS-1 dated 16.8.2007and C-130 L4\04\2007-CCHS-1 dated:
03/2008. The above said information was not only given to me but also to Dr (Mrs) Shashi Gupta, Physiotherapist vide your letter no C-13014\03\2007-
CGHS-i dated - l6.6.2008.
But on the contrary, when dealing the matter under ACP Scheme 1999, I was informed that pay scale 8000-13500 accorded to me w.e.f. 1.1.1996 is an upgraded pay scale. This information were given vide letter no C17012\2\2007-CGHS-1 dated 26.12.2007 and Order no A32022\1\2000-CGHS-1 dated 2. 7. 2007.
2. Kindly inform: a) that which out of the two information's given under RTI Act and ACP Scheme is false and wrong.
b) Why the scale 8000-13500, given on 1.1.1996 is treated as placement on higher scale under ACP Scheme to me, where as it holds well in the case of Dr. V.K.GHOSH."
Reply of Public Information Officer (PIO):
"I am directed to refer to the Application/Appeal under section 19 of RTI Act, 2005 received in this Directorate on 10.06.2011, 16.06.2011, 17.06.2011 & 21.06.2011.Page 1 of 2
(Three RTI applications in original) Sh. A.K. Bhatnagar request to provide the information as asked for their information directly to the applicant under intimation to this Directorate the application is being transferred under RTI Rule 6 (3) of the RTI ACT, 2005."
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given to the appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"
1. I am to enclose herewith two letters in original bearing no. F. No. C- 13014/05/2011-CGHS-I dated:07.06.2011 annexing therewith RTI application and appeal of Sh. A.K. Bhatnagar and to state that RTI applicants were not transferred earlier therefore the same cannot be dealt at the appellate stage.
2. You are requested to instruct Deputy Director Administration accordingly.
3. You may kindly note that earlier 1st appeal dated: 10.06.2011 of Sh. A.K. Bhatnagar was sent to your office letter of even no. dated:05.07.2011."
Ground for Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information had been provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. A. K. Bhatnagar;
Respondent: Mr. Laxi Narayan, PIO, Mr. N. Kaliappan.
The Appellant has been given all the information available on record. He has also done an inspection of the complete records, as admitted by him. The Appellant has an issue and believes that he should have been given higher scales. This is a matter of interpretation of the rules and this Commission has no jurisdiction over this.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed of.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 31 October 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(pr) Page 2 of 2