CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000013/SG/9124
Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000013/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. S D Sambrani,
IMO In - Charge of Casuality,
ESIC Model Hospital,
Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore - 560010.
Respondent : Mr. Manish Gupta
Deemed PIO & Assistant Director
Employees State Insurance Corporation
Panchdeep Bhawan CIG Road,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 16/03/2007
PIO replied : 02/06/2009
First appeal filed on : 03/07/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not enclosed
Second Appeal received on : 14/10/2009
Information Sought
The Appellant sought information regarding –
• Up-to-date list of the names of the members of the standing committee of ESIC, (vide R.2. (j) Of
ESIC (Staff and conditions of Service)) Regulation 1959, with their designations, mailing
addresses and phone numbers.
• Whether the DG has obtained written approval of the ‘Standing Committee as to relaxation of
assessment of grading to be allowed in the case of SC/ST candidates in assessment of grading of
CR for one year only despite the DOPT OM No. 36012/28/96-Estt (Res.) Vol. II ~lt. 3.10.2000,
for the purpose of considering promotions to the grade of CMO (NFSG), if so, kindly provide me
an attested copy of such approval given by the ‘Standing Committee and the order of the DC. If
any, thereon with specific dates.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
Reply enclosed by the PIO with the relevant information.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
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.
Submission received from Respondent:
The respondent has sent his submission stating that the information has been provided to the appellant by
letters of 23/04/2007 and 27/04/2007. Further information was also provided to the appellant on
04/06/2007. The PIO claims that all the information thus has been provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Manish Gupta, Deemed PIO & Assistant Director;
The respondent shows that the complete information has been provided to the appellant. From a
perusal of the papers this appears to be correct. The appellant has claimed that he has not received the
information which the respondent claims to have sent on 27/04/2007. The Commission is attaching the
information sent by the respondent on 24/07/2007.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
The information appears to have 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
30 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)