Central Information Commission
Saleena Mp vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 14 March, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ESICO/A/2023/110642
Ms.Saleena MP ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Employees State Insurance Corporation ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.03.2024
Date of Decision : 12.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.08.2022
PIO replied on : 27.09.2022
First Appeal filed on : 23.09.2022
First Appellate Order on : 06.12.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 07.03.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.08.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Can a material and medicine be purchased through ESIC for an employee in need? Or is there only reimbursement option? Kindly provide details.
2. Can a material available in GEM portal be purchased by ESIC for a staff in need? Is there any provision or order in this regard or any order that states this can not be done. Kindly provide order number.
3 a. Is it possible to purchase an electric wheel chair for an employee of ESIC who is certified to have 75 percent disability? b. Is there any orders stating that only reimbursement is possible in such cases? Kindly provide order number and details.
c. Does Medical Superintendent have the authority to change or modify decision of purchasing committee? If yes kindly provide details. d. Is it necessary for an employee of ESIC to attend the medical board and confirm the disability, if he/she already possess a disability certificate. If yes details or the order and order number is sought for."
The CPIO vide letter dated 27.09.2022 replied as under:-
"1 Question is interrogatory in nature, cannot be answered under RTI act. 2 Order as asked for is not available.
3(a) Question is interrogatory in nature, cannot be answered under RTI act. 3(b) As question 3(a) is not answerable, the question 3(b) also cannot be answered.Page 1 of 2
3(c) Question is interrogatory in nature, cannot be answered under RTI act. 3(d) Question is interrogatory in nature, cannot be answered under RTI act."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.09.2022. The FAA vide order dated 06.12.2022 held as under:-
"1 The Question is Vague.
2Yes as per procedure.
3(a)Question unclear.
(b)Question unclear.
(c)To refer GFR rules.
(d)No information available."
Aggrieved and 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 vide letter dated 02.03.2024 reiterating the aforementioned queries.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Biju P D - CPIO was heard through video conference during the hearing.
The Respondent stated that queries raised by the Appellant were vague and hypothetical, hence information could not be provided in response to the same.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing averments of the parties, it is evident that appropriate reply had been sent by the Respondent with respect to the queries raised by the Appellant. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress this case hence no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) 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