CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.2962/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBC/2008/00520
October 23, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18
[Hearing on 14.10.2008 at 12.30 p.m.]
Appellant: Mr. P. Krishna Rao
Public authority: Central Govt. Health Scheme
Dr. B. Badarinarayana, CMO & CPIO
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Dr. B. Badarinarayana, CMO
Mr. P. Krishana Rao-Appellant
DECISION
This case was listed for rehearing on 14.10.2008 since no one attended
the hearing from CGHS on the day when it was listed for hearing on 30.9.2008.
A direction was also given to CPIO to provide point-wise reply to the appellant
within 15 days and he should also file his reply before the Commission to decide
whether he should be issued with show-cause notice or not. This was attended
by Dr. Badarinarayana, CMO (SG), CGHS representing the HQ. The appellant
has also attended the hearing. The RTI application is dated 12.5.2007 has not
been immediately attended to by the designated officers and this paper has been
sent to JE(HQ) who in turn referred to Additional DDG, HQ. Finally the appellant
could be given some reply only on 26.9.2008 by which he was informed that at
the time of retirement since he was not entitled for CGHS facility he was not
entitled for CGHS facility after his coming to Delhi. It is also noticed during the
hearing whenever the information has to be collected from HQ office or from the
Ministry concerned, the CPIO should have invoked the provisions of section 5(5)
of RTI Act so that the other person who is expected to provide information would
become the deemed CPIO. This has not been followed. There was no attempt
on the part of the CPIO or any officers who has received the application to
provide the reply within time-frame. Therefore the CPIO is directed to show-
cause why penalty cannot be imposed on him under section 20(1) of RTI Act and
he should send his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of this
direction. As far as the appellant is concerned he has received reply on
1.10.2008 by which he has been told that he is not entitled for the CGHS facility.
No further information can be given to him. However, the appellant has drawn
1
my attention to a clarification issued by his Pension Drawing Office, the Post
Master, Lodhi Road Post office to the effect that since he is residing at Delhi he is
entitled for CGHS facility, whereas the Joint Director, CGHS has informed him
otherwise.
The appellant has been drawing attention to a communication/clarification
given by CGHS in case if the beneficiary is not entitled for CGHS he is entitled
for some medical allowance from the Pension Drawing Authority. Therefore, I
would direct the CPIO to endorse the clarification given by the CGHS to the
Pension Disbursing Authority of the appellant so that he can draw the medical
allowance along with the pension. Since the person has raised this point
whether he is entitled for CGHS or not when the Joint Director clarified he is not
entitled for CGHS since he has not availed this facility at the time of retirement
the CPIO is directed to endorse the copy of the clarification along with his
remarks to the pension Disbursing officer of the appellant so that the appellant
will be able to get the medical allowance in future in lieu of CGHS facility. This
should be done immediately. The CPIO is directed to file his reply after doing the
above within 15 days from the date of receipt of this decision.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Dr. B. Badarinarayana, CMO & CPIO, Central Govt. Health Scheme, 9,
Bikaner House, New Delhi.
2. Mr. P. Krishna Rao, B-41, 2nd Floor, Gupta Colony, Khirkhi Extension,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
2