Central Information Commission
Devki Devi vs Department Of Health & Family Welfare on 27 November, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOHFW/A/2018/167702
Mrs. Devki Devi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Department of Health & Family Welfare,
Establishment-III Section,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
PIO
O/o the M.S.,
Safdarjung Hospital,
New Delhi-110029
Date of Hearing : 26.11.2020
Date of Decision : 27.11.2020
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.06.2018
PIO replied on : 07.09.2018
First Appeal filed on : 04.09.2018
First Appellate Order on : 01.10.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 15.11.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.06.2018seeking information on following 10 points pertaining to non-release of pension in favour of Widow Devki Devi, W/o Late Shri Jagat Singh.
1. What is the status of the Complaint/Regd. No. DOPPW/P/2012/01248.
2. Who is the incharge of Pension department to release the pension of the widow Devki Devi.
3. How much time required for releasing the pension.
4. How much balance of the pension as on date.
5. Who is the final authority to release the Pension?
Etc. Initially vide letter dated 26.07.2018, the RTI application was transferred by the Establishment- III Section, M/o Health and Family Welfare to the PAO (Sectt), Page 1 of 4 M/o Health and Family Welfare. Thereafter, vide letter dated 08.08.2018, the RTI application was again transferred by the CPIO, M/o Health and Family Welfare to the Under Secretary (Hospital), M/o Health and Family Welfare as the information sought pertained to Safdarjung Hospital.
Subsequently, vide letter dated 07.09.2018, the Asst Administrative Officer, O/o the Medical Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital gave the following reply:
1 to 10 - The requisite information is not pertain to Admn.IV. Moreover, the designation of the deceased is also not mentioned.
Dissatisfied with the response from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.09.2018. The order of the FAA and Director (Admn) dated 01.10.2018 is not legible.
Feeling aggrievedand dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO & US, M/o H&FW, Establishment- III Section vide letters dated 19.10.2020 and 13.11.2020 wherein while reiterating replies provided in the matter it was stated that since no material information relating to the pension case of Late Shri Jagat Singh was under the possession of CPlO's (Establishment & Admn) and since, the matter was already transferred to other concerned CPIO's ,the appeal was disposed of vide FAA Order dated 01.10.2018. The copy of the order of FAA was also forwarded to the CPIO, Hospital Section and CPIO, PAO (Sectt.) for taking necessary action.Furthermore, since the husband of the applicant was the employee of the Safdarjung Hospital, CPIO, Hospital Section has alsoforwarded the RTI application to the concerned CPIO of the Safdarjung Hospital. The detailed information may be available with CPIO, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.
A written submission has been received from the PAO, Safdarjung Hospital vide letter dated 23.10.2020 wherein a point wise response against the queries raised in the RTI application was provided.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant's representative Shri Gopal Singh participated in the hearing on being contacted on Appellant's telephone. He stated that neither was the pension released nor any satisfactory information provided, till date and that despite being the wife of a former ambulance driver in Safdarjung Hospital,who passed away in 1997 and possessing important documents such as the pension payment order, she was made to run from pillar to post to seek relief.
The Respondent is represented by Shri Amit Kumar, US and CPIO, M/o Health and Family Welfare and Dr Mukesh Nagar, CPIO, Safdarjung Hospital through audio conference. Shri Nagar stated that the complaint referred in the RTI Page 2 of 4 application was not received by them. However, the RTI application was transferred to the PAO, Safdarjung Hospital, Dharmshala Campus since the subject matter of the information sought pertained to their jurisdiction. Moreover, in the absence of specific details in her RTI application such as the designation from which her deceased husband had retired; place of his posting, etc, it was difficult to provide information to the Appellant. On being questioned by the Commission regarding their view on the documents enclosed by the Appellant with her Second Appeal i.e., memorandum issued by AO, O/o the Medical Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital dated 26.07.1997 regarding consideration of grant of family pension to the Appellant and the Pension Payment Order (PPO) in the name of Shri Jagat Singh by the PAO, Safdarjung Hospital which establishes that he is an employee of Safdarjung Hospital, Dr. Nagar feigned ignorance and stated that the same was never made available to them with the notice of hearing of the Commission.
Decision:
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available record, the Commission at the outset notes that the instant matter in an example of how the grievance of a common citizen regarding payment of pension on death of her husband which is her inalienable right is callously dealt with by the Respondent Public Authority i.e., Safdarjung Hospital.
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its recent judgment in K.T. Thimaiah vs The General Manager, KTPL and Ors., WP No 11517/2017 (S-R) dated 09.11.2020 in the context of a petitioner seeking terminal benefits after having retired on attaining age of superannuation directed the Respondent KPTL to release the terminal benefits accrued to the petitioner from the date of his retirement alongwith interest at 9% p.a. from the date it fell due till its satisfaction by the KPTCL and costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner. The observation of the Hon'ble High Court pertinent to the instant case is as under:
"21. Before parting with the judgment it is necessary to remind the KPTCL that pension payable to its employees upon superannuation is a property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and it constitutes a fundamental right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The deprivation of even a part of this amount cannot be accepted, except in accordance with law, as pension is neither a bounty, charity or a gratuitous payment but an indefeasible right of an employee in terms of the Rules. Terminal benefits will enable a retired employee to live a life free from want, with decency, independence and self-respect. Depriving such right to livelihood, will leave a pensioner fall on the thorns of life and bleed."
Moreover, it is surprising to note that despite documents produced by the Appellant to prove the genuineness of her claim i.e., the memorandum dated 26.07.1997 and the PPO issued by the PAO, Safdarjung Hospital, the CPIO, PAO (Ms. Varsha Sharma) in her reply dated 26.09.2018 took the plea that as per their record there existed no pensioner/ family pensioner in the name of Devki W/o Shri Jagat Singh. The Commission also observes that the RTI application was transferred to multiple offices leading to further delay in redressal of Appellant's grievance which could have been resolved much earlier had the grievance redressal mechanism remained functional in the Public Authority. Thus, in the light of the preceding observations, the Commission directs the CPIO, PAO, Page 3 of 4 Safdarjung Hospital to reexamine the RTI application and provide clear and specific point wise responses to the Appellant. A copy of the memorandum dated 26.07.1997 and the PPO issued by the PAO, Safdarjung Hospital shall be expeditiously provided by the Registry of this Bench alongwith the entire set of documents of the Second Appeal to the Respondent Safdarjung Hospital (Ms. Varsha Sharma, PAO) to ensure timely compliance of this order. The aforementioned order shall be complied with by the Respondent by 31.12.2020 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above directions, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4