Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Parshadi Lal vs Employees State Insurance … on 7 July, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr.Parshadi Lal vs Employees State Insurance … on 7 July, 2010
                           CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                               Club Building (Near Post Office)
                             Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                    Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                         Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001409/8426
                                                                Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001409

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                                  :       Mr. Parshadi Lal
                                                   Father of Deceased Sh. OM
                                                   C/o R.S. Soni,

Adv Chamber No. 435, Patiala House Courts, New
Del

Respondent : Mr. Yograj
Public Information Officer & Branch Manager
Employees State Insurance Corporation
Ministry of Labour and Employment
G-19, Nead Deshbandhu College,
Kalkaji, New Delhi

RTI application filed on : 13/11/2009
PIO replied : 16/11/2009 (RTI Transferred from ESIC
Rajendra Place to CPIO kalkaji Delhi)
First appeal filed on : 18/01/2010
First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 12/02/2010
Second Appeal received on : 04/03/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public
Information Officer (PIO)

1. Please supply the certified copy of the appointment letter of No reply
the insured person.

2. Please supply the certified copy of the receipt in respect of As above
the ESI contribution of Rs.2.l0/- in respect of workman Sri
OM.

3. Please supply the certified copy of the receipt of wages for As above
two days i.e. 16.06.199710 17.06.1997 amounting to Rs.1
19/- paid to workman Sri Orn.

4. Please supply the certified copy of information/ accident As above
report at.27.06. 1997 by the employer in respect of workmen
Sri Om.

5. Please provide the name of the officials of ESI who As above
accepted the proposal dt.16.06.1997.

6. Please provide the name and designation of the officer from As above
the office or the employer who submitted the proposal for
appointment of the insured person i.e. workman Sri Om.

7. Please supply the list of other insured workmen of the As above
present employer with the respective dates of appointment.
Grounds for the First Appeal:

Not received information form CPIO.

First Appellate Authority (FAA) order:

The information sought is third party information and is barred under the RTI Act.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

Not satisfied with the decision of FAA.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;

Respondent : Mr. Yograj, Public Information Officer & Branch Manager;

The Respondent states that he received the RTI application after the transfer on 16/11/2009 and
he replied to the appellant on 28/01/2010. This was incomplete and finally the details wee given on
10/03/2010 effectively saying that most of the information was not available with the public authority.
The respondent states that the then Branch Manager Mrs. Neelam Khanna was responsible for the delay
in providing the information.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The information appears to have been provided to the appellant.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then PIO
Mrs. Neelam Khanna within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within
the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of
the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A show cause notice
is being issued to her, and she is directed give her reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should
not be levied on her.

Mrs. Neelam Khanna will present herself before the Commission at the above address on 03 August 2010 at
3.00pm alongwith her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on her as
mandated under Section 20 (1).

If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is
directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission
with him.

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
07 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ARG)
CC:

To,
Mrs. Neelam Khanna the then PIO through Mr. Yograj, Public Information Officer & Branch
Manager;