CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001518/8571
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001518
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. S.C Sharma, Advocate
Chamber no. 976
Patiala House Court
New Delhi.
Respondent : Mr. Ravi Kumar
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director
Directorate (Medical) Delhi
ESI Scheme: Dispensary Complex
Tilak Vihar
New Delhi-110018
RTI application filed on : 10/03/2010
PIO replied : 23/03/2010
First appeal filed on : 22/04/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 26/04/2010
Second Appeal received on : 03/06/2010
Information Sought:
There had been a delay in the payment of Dr. Neena Sharma’s salary.
The Appellant sought information regarding –
• When the bills were received from Mayur Vihar Dispensary for the month of February 2010 and name
of the officials of Mayur Vihar Dispensary for the delay in sending bills to the accounts department at
Tilak Vihar.
• Detail of the action taken for excess deduction i.e. of Rs. 5000/- of TDS for that years.
• The date when Dr. Neena Sharma applied for encashment of leave salary duly recommended by the
CMO Incharge and the date when it was returned with frivolous objection and the date wise action
taken for the same.
• Action taken to outsource the dispatch of the letters of communication and why sanctions for salary
could not be communicated through internet.
• Reasons for not providing brief case apron and face masks so far.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
(The reply given by the PIO is not in sequence to the queries asked by the Appellant).
• Dr. Neena Sharma applied for encashment on 12.06.2009 and proceeded on leave without getting the
same sanctioned by the competent authority. As per the instructions of the office the leave application
must be received by the office within 3 weeks which was not done by Dr. Neena despite this she had
been sanctioned leave and leave encashment on 17.08.2009.
• The Appellant had not indicated any specific period for which the information was being sought in
Query 2.
• The IT rollout for ESIC is under process and likely to complete by August 2010 for Query 3 of the
Appellant.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No justification for any personal hearing since no new information is sought.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information and reply provided by the PIO and FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. S.C Sharma, Advocate;
Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kumar, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director;
The appellant has given RTI application over three pages most of which is leveling allegations and
representing grievances of the appellant. Out of these whatever information has been sought has been
provided by the respondent.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
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
16 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(IN)