Information regarding discrepancy in eligibility of pensioners availing was sought - CIC: An enquiry be conducted by the FAA for missing records and fixing responsibility - CIC: provide the current status of the implementation of the guidelines
The appellant sought information regarding discrepancy in eligibility of pensioners availing CGHS during their period of service and after in the Dept. of Posts and M/o Telecommunications along with several similar queries. Relevant facts emerging during hearing: Both parties are present. As RTI applications are similar and are based on the same issue, the abovementioned appeals are being clubbed and heard & decided together. The appellant filed two RTI applications dt. 10.07.2012 & 25.06.2012, seeking the above information. On not receiving any reply on his RTI application dt. 10.07.2012, appellant filed first appeal. The FAA did not dispose of the same. CPIO/US provided point-wise information to the appellant in response to the RTI application dt. 25.06.2012. The FAA did not dispose of first appeal. The appellant stated that no information has been received by him regarding his RTI application dt. 10.07.2012. The respondent, CPIO/US (CGHS-P), stated that the said RTI application was transferred to ADDG(HQ) CGHS & CPIO vide letter dt. 31.07.2012 as the information was related to the Directorate’s file. The Directorate transferred back the said RTI application stating that the matter pertains to CGHS-P. Accordingly, the relevant file was searched and after due efforts made, the appellant was intimated vide letter dt. 05.09.2012 that the relevant file is untraceable.
The appellant stated that the reply of CPIO, in response to RTI application dt.25.06.2012, is incorrect. He alleged that the correspondence cannot be of 1000 pgs. within a period of 6 years and that the CPIO is deliberately trying to suppress the information. The respondent, CPIO /US, stated that the matter was not final as yet relating to the implementation of guidelines applicable to pensioners and that the same were pending before the High Court & Supreme Court. He stated that the file contains internal correspondence, which contain documents as interpretation of guidelines, due to which the appellant was offered an opportunity of inspection, so that he may take the copies of documents relevant to him. The appellant stated that the High Court and the Supreme Court have already rejected the case and that now the guidelines should be implemented. The respondent stated that the same is under consideration in the Dept. for implementation only and that as and when a final decision is arrived at, appropriate action will be taken.
After hearing the parties and on perusal of record, the Commission, in file no. CIC/SS/A/2013/002395-YA, directs CPIO/US (CGHS-P) to trace the relevant record/documents, within four weeks of receipt of this order and then provide information to the appellant, as is available on record, if the same are traced, within six weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. If the documents are not traced within the prescribed time, then an enquiry be conducted by the FAA in this regard and responsibility be fixed for deemed fit action. An enquiry report along with a certificate, to the effect that the said documents were not found, be provided to the appellant and to the Commission.
The Commission, in file no. CIC/SS/A/2013/002747-YA, directs CPIO/US to provide the appellant with the current status of the implementation of the guidelines referred to by the appellant, along with information south, as is available on record, within three weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. Secretary, M/o Health & Family Welfare is directed to take note of the manner of FAA in not disposing of the first appeals filed by the appellant in these cases. This is for information and necessary action as deemed fit. A copy of this order may be marked to Secretary, M/o Health & Family Welfare. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Shri S.P. Gupta v. M/o Health & Family Welfare in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/002395-YA, CIC/SS/A/2013/002747-YA