Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Dhasharad Ram vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 29 June, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr.Dhasharad Ram vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 29 June, 2010
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                    Decision No. CIC/DS/A/2010/000367/SG/8327
                                                           Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2010/000367/SG

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Ram
Employee, Rajya Bima Hospital,
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

Respondent : Public Information Officer
Employee, Rajya Bima Adarsh Hospital,
ESI Model Hospital
Naamkum,
Ranchi, Jharkhand.


RTI application filed on           :       18/02/2009
PIO replied                        :       07/03/2009
First appeal filed on              :       30/03/2009
First Appellate Authority order    :       13/04/2009
Second Appeal received on          :       09/07/2009


S. No   Information Sought                   Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1.      Whether nursing and laundry          According to the Municipal Council's rate, all the
        allowances are bring paid as per     substitute employees of the hospital are paid
        rules. If not who is responsible     nursing allowance, laundry allowance, etc.
        provide name.

2. Names of those who have not been In the light of the letter Z 28015/24/2001, dated
granted patient protection 02/02/2004 issued by the Ministry of Family Health
allowances. and Welfare, the following substitute employees
were not granted the patient protection allowance

1) Mr. Jay Prakash Narayan Singh

2) Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh

3) Mr. Shiv Kumar Ram

4) Mr. Etna Urant

3. Reasons for not leasing bonus and The offer to pay bonus to State appointed
other benefits. employees is under consideration, however a
transparent and official letter from the government
has not been received yet. No objection Certificate
has not been submitted.

Grounds for the First Appeal:

Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO

Page 1 of 2
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed by the FAA

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and No order passed by the FAA

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From perusal
of the papers it appears that the information has been supplied to the appellant.

Decision:

The appeal is dismissed.

The information has been provided.
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
29 June 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)

Page 2 of 2