Central Information Commission
Bikram Kumar Singh vs Department Of Health & Family Welfare on 13 May, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MOHFW/A/2025/615404
Bikram Kumar Singh .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1.CPIO
Department of Health & Family
Welfare
Room No. 745-A, 7th Floor, Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
2.CPIO
AIIMS, Sri Aurobindo Marg,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-
110029 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.05.2026
Date of Decision : 13.05.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Jaya Varma Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.11.2024
CPIO replied on : 21.11.2024
First appeal filed on : 13.01.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 20.01.2025
2nd Appeal dated : 02.04.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2024(online) seeking the following information:CIC/MOHFW/A/2025/615404 Page 1 of 8
"I am writing to request detailed information regarding the bond policy applicable to both teaching and non-teaching employees at all AIIMS, specifically in relation to the requirement to serve the Institute for a minimum period or pay the penalty.
Please provide the requested information separately for all AIIMS, specifying the bond policy for teaching and non-teaching employees, and also indicate the relevant policies for each employee group (A, B, and C).
1. The rationale behind the imposition of a penalty bond. Kindly provide a copy of the office order or document that outlines the purpose and need for this bond.
2. On which meeting or forum was the decision to impose the bond taken? Please provide a copy of the decision taken.
3. The competent authority for the incorporation of the bond into employment contracts. Please provide a copy of the office order or document detailing this authority.
4. The competent authority is empowered to waive the bond. Please provide a copy of the office order or document detailing this authority.
5. To date, how much bond penalty has been collected from employees? Please provide details of the amount collected post-wise & year-wise.
6. Has any bond waiver been granted to date? If yes, please provide the information post-wise and year-wise. Also, please provide copies of the relevant office orders or documents that outline the grounds/reasons for waiver.
7. What welfare measures are in place for handling such bond obligations at all AIIMS?
8. Was the bond information disclosed to AIIMS Delhi during the CRE process by all/any AIIMS? If yes, please provide a copy of the relevant documents.
9. Did all/any AIIMS have provided the terms and conditions of employment, including the bond, to AIIMS Delhi? If yes, please provide a copy of the relevant document.
10.Did all/any AIIMS seek a legal opinion regarding the validity of the bond at the time of its incorporation? If yes, please provide a copy of the legal opinion obtained.
11. Which AIIMS has implemented a bond requirement for Junior Administrative Officers/Office Assistants/Executive Assistants recruited through AIIMS CRE 2023?
12. What are the provisions for waiving the bond for Junior Administrative Officers/Office Assistants/Executive Assistants recruited through AIIMS CRE 2023 at all AIIMS?CIC/MOHFW/A/2025/615404 Page 2 of 8
13.What is the bond amount for Junior Administrative Officers/Office Assistants/Executive Assistants at different AIIMS recruited through AIIMS CRE 2023?
14.Does all/any AIIMS implementing the bond policy have a policy on exemption or withdrawal? Please provide a copy of the office order or document detailing these policies.
15.Does the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and PMSSY allow all/any AIIMS to incorporate the bond obligations in employment terms in case of non- teaching staff?
I joined AIIMS Bhopal on 07.05.2024 as an Office Assistant (NS) through AIIMS CRE 2023 (a copy of the joining order is enclosed for reference) and was relieved on 16.10.2024. I was forced to pay a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) to get relieved from AIIMS Bhopal without any interim relief. Please provide the information in parlance with the preamble of the RTI Act 2005 for each AIIMS. I am directly affected by the policy at AIIMS Bhopal and all the information sought is crucial for me and can be provided to me."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.11.2024 stating as under:
"Reference RTI Application registration No. MOHFW/R/E/03812/1 dated 11.11.2024 of Shri Santosh, Varanasi which has been received in this Section through RTI Portal of the Ministry.
2. Since, the sought information pertains to all new AIIMS, therefore RTI Application is being transferred under section 6 (3) of RTI Act, 2005 to the concerned CPIOs with request to provide the requisite information to the applicant directly.
3. In case, the requested information does not pertain to you or does not fall under your jurisdiction, the application may kindly be further transferred to the appropriate authority directly under intimation to the applicant."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.01.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 20.01.2025, held as under:
"Reference Online RTI Appeal bearing Registration No. MOHFW/A/E/25/00011 dated 13.01.2025 of Shri Bikram Kumar Singh, Patna which has been received in this Division through RTI Portal of the Ministry filed against his RTI application Registration No. MOHFW/R/E/24/035812/1 dated 11.11.2024 seeking information regarding bond policy at all AIIMS.CIC/MOHFW/A/2025/615404 Page 3 of 8
2. Since, the information sought by the applicant is handled at Institute level, the CPIO, PMSSY-IV transferred the RTI application to all CPIOs of AIIMS under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 vide this Ministry's letter of even no. dated 21.11.2024 requesting them to provide the requisite information to the applicant directly.
3. The Appellant has filed the appeal stating that that he is not satisfied with the information provided by AIIMS Delhi, AIIMS Kalyani and AIIMS Bhopal and information not provided by AIIMS Jodhpur, AIIMS Rishikesh, AIIMS Bathinda, AIIMS Guwahati, AIIM'S Deoghar and AIIMS Rajkot.
4. Since, the matter is handled at Institute level and the RTI Application was transferred to CPIOs of AIIMS, therefore, the Appeal is also being forwarded to the First Appellate Authorities of these Institutes with a request to provide the requisite information to the appellant directly."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Bhola, Administrative Officer, AIIMS Delhi, Shri Ankit Kumar, Administrative Officer, AIIMS Delhi, Shri A.K. Biswas, Under Secretary (MoHFW), Shri Gyanendra Prasad, CPIO-cum-Administrative Officer, AIIMS Bhopal, Shri Ravinder Kumar, CAPIO-cum-Assistant Administrative Officer, AIIMS Delhi, Shri Raj Kumar Bhardwaj, Administrative Officer, AIIMS Delhi and Dr. Naval, Assistant Dean, attended the hearing in person.
5. The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the replies provided by the Respondents.
6. Shri A.K. Biswas, Under Secretary (MoHFW), submitted that the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application pertains to all new AIIMS across India and no information is available in their office in a compiled form. Therefore, the then CPIO vide letter dated 21.11.2024 has transferred the same to all new AIIMS.
7. Shri Gyanendra Prasad, CPIO-cum-Administrative Officer, AIIMS Bhopal, submitted that a suitable reply based on available records has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 20.12.2024, stating as under:
CIC/MOHFW/A/2025/615404 Page 4 of 81. "This information is enclosed at Annexure-A.
2.-3. This information is enclosed at Annexure-B.
4. Information is not available.
5. This information is enclosed at Annexure-C
6. Under the provision of RTI Act 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by puntie aathority or is makes conzal of publi:
authority can be provided. The CPIO is not supposed to interpret information. Further, it doesn't envisage replying to the questions seeking information/ documents in the form of Clarification, 'Reason', 'Advice"," Opinion', or to force a Public Authority to take decision in any matter by using the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005
7. Information is not available.
8. Please refer to reply provided under serial No. 6 above.
9. Please refer to reply provided under serial No. 6 above.
10. Please refer to reply provided under serial No. 6 above.
11. The bond provision is given in Offer of Appointment which is issued by AIIMS Bhopal for the post of Office Assistant (NS) recruited through AIIMS CRE 2023.
12. Documents are not available in Non Faculty Cell. The decision regarding waiving of Bond is taken by the competent authority on case to case basis. No specific rules & regulation/policy/ order is available in Non faculty cell regarding waiver of bond for the post of Office Assistant (NS) recruited through AIIMS CRE 2023.
13. The bond amount for the post of Office Assistant (NS) recruited through AIIMS CRE 2023 is Rs. 2 lakh which is indicated in the Offer of Appointment issued by Recruitment Cell, AIIMS Bhopal.
14. Please refer to reply provided under serial No. 6 above.
15. Please refer to reply provided under serial No. 6 above."
8. He added that the Appellant through the instant RTI Application is seeking redressal of his grievance regarding imposition of penalty bond and is trying to pressure the Public Authority to waive the bond.
9. The Appellant interjected and asked the Respondent that with respect to point No. 4 of the RTI Application, who is the competent authority to waive the penalty bond, the Respondent submitted that Director is the competent authority.
CIC/MOHFW/A/2025/615404 Page 5 of 810. A written submission has been received from Shri Pradeep Chandra Pandey, CPIO, vide letter dated nil, stating as under:
"1. Reply to RTI registration #MOHFW/R/E/24/03812/1, dated 11.11.2024 had been sent to the applicant through by mail on 29.04.2026, copy of RTI Application is enclosed as annexure- 'A', 'B' & 'C', copy of reply is enclosed as annexure- 'D' and Copy of evidence of disposal of reply is enclosed as annexure- 'E'.
2. Reply of first Appeal of RTI has been disposed on 30.04.2026, copy of Appeal is enclosed as annexure 'F', 'G' & 'H', reply to appeal is enclosed as annexure-'I' and copy of evidence of disposal of Appeal reply is enclosed as annexure-'ני
3. Applicant filed Second appeal to the CIC. It has been confirmed by the CPIO that all available information has been given and there is nothing to add."
Decision:
11. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant has filed the instant RTI Application before Department of Health and Family Welfare, seeking scattered information of all the AIIMS across India which requires collection & collation of the data. Hence, giving direction to Department of Health and Family Welfare, to provide the said information would divert the time and resources of the public authority and thereby attracting the provisions of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act.
12. It is pertinent to mention that in terms of para 3 (iii) of DoP&T OM No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12th June 2008, the Appellant should file separate RTI Applications to different offices in order to obtain such scattered information. However, the concerned CPIO of the MoHFW has ignored the DoP&T OM No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12th June 2008 and has transferred the RTI Application to all AIIMS across India for which he is being admonished. Shri A.K. Biswas, Under Secretary (MoHFW), is directed to serve a copy of this order on the then CPIO.
13. As per available record file, AIIMS Delhi has provided a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 14.12.2024, AIIMS Rishikesh has provided a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 27.04.2026, AIIMS Kalyani has CIC/MOHFW/A/2025/615404 Page 6 of 8 provided a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 30.04.2026, AIIMS Deogarh has provided a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 30.04.2026, AIIMS Bathinda has provided a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 29.04.2026 and AIIMS Bhopal, has provided a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 20.12.2024.
14. After perusal of the records, it appears that the Appellant is seeking redressal of his grievance pertaining to imposition of a penalty bond by AIIMS Bhopal. Despite this, the CPIO of AIIMS Bhopal has provided a response to the Appellant vide letter dated 20.12.2024. The Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
15. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v.
Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
17. While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal CIC/MOHFW/A/2025/615404 Page 7 of 8 rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
(Emphasis Supplied)
18. The Appellant is advised to approach appropriate forum to redress his grievance.
19. Notwithstanding the above, the reply provided by the CPIO, AIIMS Bhopal with respect to point No. 4 of the RTI Application, is not appropriate. Therefore, Shri Gyanendra Prasad, CPIO-cum-Administrative Officer, AIIMS Bhopal, is directed to provide a revised reply to the Appellant on point No. 4 of the RTI Application, in the light of the submissions made during the hearing, within two weeks of receipt of this order. If the Respondent requires assistance from any other office/officer for compliance with the above directions, the same shall be sought by invoking Section 5(4) of RTI Act.
20. The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasistha) Dy. Registrar 011- 26107042 Copy To:
The FAA, Department of Health & Family Welfare Room No. 201-D,2nd Floor, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi -110011 CIC/MOHFW/A/2025/615404 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)