In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000206
Date of Hearing : February 23, 2011
Date of Decision : February 23, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri K.K.Kutty
'Lakshmi'
Survey no.4
Sangam Nagar
Old Sangvi
Pune 411 027
The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Respondents
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
O/o Deputy Secretary
Nirman bhawan
New Delhi
Represented by : Shri O.P.Sharma, Under Secretary on behalf of CPIO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000206
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.3.5.10 with the PIO, M/o Health & Family Welfare. He
sought information against 9 points including transfer policy regarding the tenure/posting of medical
officers especially at SAG level in CGHS units, and whether a medical officer who has been working
in the same city can be retained there even after promotion to SAG, whether retention and elevation
of officers who have been working in CGHS, Pune for years together and have developed unhealthy
rapport with various private hospitals promoted to the post of Addl. Director would be proper from the
vigilance angle, names and designations of the officials and officers at CGHS Directorate/Ministry
who have dealt with the request of Dr.Pashupatimath for retention in CGHS, Pune and copies of file
notings, etc. he also wanted to know whether the Ministry has issued any guidelines for settling of
medical reimbursement claims of pensioners and has fixed any time frame within which the claims
are to be settled. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.21.6.10 with the Appellate Authority stating that he
has not received any information . Ms.Gayatri Mishra, CPIO replied on 2.7.10 furnishing point wise
information while stating that information sought against points 3 and 5 does not comply with the
definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. She also informed the Applicant that points 6 to 9 do
not pertain to her division and added that information can be obtained directly from Addl. Director,
CGHS, Pune. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.10.11.10 before
CIC commenting on the reply provided and pointing out the deficiencies. He also requested the
Commission to condone the delay in filing the second appeal in view of the fact that he is a senior
citizen aged 73 years and is suffering from various agerelated health problems including cardiac
ailments and hypertension.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that the first appeal was not received by them initially
and that it had been received only along with the hearing notice sent by the Commission and added
that the Appellate Authority vide her order dt.22.2.11 had decided that the reply furnished by the PIO
is satisfactory. The Respondent further added that the RTI application was received by the PIO only
on 2.6.10 and that the reply was furnished on 2.7.10.
3. The Commission, however noted that the Appellant had filed his second appeal on 10.11.10 since he
was not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO on 2.7.10, and also that the Appellant has clearly
mentioned the deficiencies against replies given by the PIO in his appeal to the Commission. The
PIO is therefore directed to go through the second appeal carefully and to provide the missing
information, if available, to the Appellant. If information is not available the Appellant to be informed
accordingly along with reasons for non availability of information.
4. The Commission also directs the PIO, CGHS, Pune to provide information directly to the Appellant
against points 6 to 9 of the RTI Application. The PIO, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare is directed
to forward a copy of this order to PIO, CGHS, Pune.
5. All information should reach the Appellant by 23.3.11 and the Appellant to submit a compliance report
to the Commission by 30.3.11.
6. The Commission also directs the PIO, CGHS, Pune to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/
per day (Maximum Rs.25000) should not be imposed upon him for not responding to the RTI
application within the stipulated time period as stipulated in the RTI Act. The PIO is directed to
submit his written submissions so as to reach the Commission by 30.3.11.
7. Ms.Gayatri Mishra, CPIO, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare is hereby directed to ensure that in
future the RTI application, if required, needs to be transferred u/s 6(3) of RTI Act within 5 days of its
receipt by her and that not doing so will be considered by the Commission as a violation of the law.
8. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri K.K.Kutty
‘Lakshmi’
Survey no.4
Sangam Nagar
Old Sangvi
Pune 411 027
2. The Public Information Officer
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
O/o Deputy Secretary
Nirman bhawan
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
O/o Joint Secretary
Nirman bhawan
New Delhi
4. Officer Incharge, NIC