Posted On by &filed under Central Information Commission, Judgements.

Central Information Commission
Mr.Haider K vs Ministry Of Health And Family … on 17 November, 2011
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                          Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002434/15738
                                                                  Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002434

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                             :      Mr. Haider K.
                                             H-78/12, Batla House,
                                             Jamia Nagar,
                                             New Delhi - 110025

Respondent                            :      PIO
                                             Ministry of Health & Family welfare
                                             Directorate of Health Services (DGHS)
                                             (MH Section)
                                             Nirman Bhawan,
                                             New Delhi

RTI application filed on              :     04-04-2011
PIO replied on                        :     14/06/2011
First Appeal filed on                 :     27-05-2011
First Appellate Authority order of    :     01-07-2011
Second Appeal received on             :     05-09-2011

Information Sought:-
The Appellant has sought the following information:-
Q.1) Provide the answers with respect to following paragraph and enclosure-I
Fifth central pay commission report, volum-1, Part-IV, page 667, Paragraph- 52.96 says "the
Administrative Ministry had formed a committee in the D.G.H.S. with representative from the
association of Physiotherapy/Occupational therapy to consider the parity of Physiotherapy with MBBS
doctor and BDS (Dental Surgeon)" (copy enclosed)
I. Kindly provide the Minutes of meeting of above said committee meeting.
II. Kindly provide the name and particular of above said committee who examine the parity
III. If minute of meeting not available on the record, provide the date of destruction of record and
destruction record of minutes of meeting.
IV. Had D.G.H.S. /Administrative Ministry given the false and fake information to 5th CPC regarding
parity of Physiotherapy with MBBS and BDS? If no, provide the minutes of meeting of above said

Q.2. Kindly provide the detail of all meeting held in the administrative Ministry in D.G.H.S , since
1.1.1994 to 3l.1.1997, in below format-
S No.                Name            & Subjects           of Date of meeting      Decision taken in
                     Designation     of meeting                                   meeting

Q. 3. If above said meetings record not available, provide the true copy of record of destruction?
                                                                                              Page 1 of 2
 PIO's Reply:-
The records are very old and are not traceable despite vigorous efforts at out end. However, if it traced
on subsequent date, the information will be posted.

Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply was given by PIO.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA gave a reply instead of giving direction to the PIO.
        "As per our records your RTI application dated 22.3.2011 was not received at our end and your
application dated 4.4.2011 was received in this Division on 14.4.2011. Efforts have been made to
locate the records in this Directorate and the PMS Division of the Ministry of Health &. F.W. Since
the same could not be located the C.P.I.O. sent a formal reply to you on 14.6.2011,a copy of which is

Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given by the PIO and Unsatisfactory order was passed by the FAA.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a
perusal of the papers it appears that the PIO had promised to give information after tracing the records.
It appears that the information has not been provided. The Commission directs the PIO to provide the
information available. If the records have been destroyed the PIO will send a copy of the weeding
rules and the relevant destruction of records register to the Appellant.


The appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant before
15 December 2011.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law.

From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing complete
information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 as per the requirement of the
RTI Act. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause
notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why
penalty should not be levied on him.

He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1) before 15 December, 2011. He will also send the information sent
to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the
information to the appellant, along with the copy of the information.

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
17 November 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (AG)

Page 2 of 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

103 queries in 0.134 seconds.