Was the condition leading to down grading in medical category classification of a driver from A1 to A3 category congenital / acquired in the course of his employment in the railways? - Respondent: individual record is private - CIC: denial upheld
Information about the circumstances under which the down grading in medical category classification of a driver was done from A1 to A3 category; whether the condition was congenital or was it acquired in the course of his employment in the railways - Respondent: any individual record is private - CIC: denial upheld
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 14.12.2011. The CPIO responded on 24.12.2011 and informed the appellant to deposit the photo copying requisite charges for obtaining the information. The appellant filed his first appeal on 19.11.2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 21.02.2012 and upheld the decision of CPIO. The appellant filed a second appeal on 23.08.2012 with the Commission.
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 14.12.2011 and stated that he has sought information about the circumstances in which the person named in the RTI application has been downgraded in the medical category classification.
5. The appellant stated that the person whose reference he has made in the RTI application was a Driver and was in the A1 category. The appellant stated that the Driver had an open heart surgery and later he was downgraded from A1 to A3 category. The appellant stated that he wanted information about the circumstances and rules under which the down grading took place from A1 to A3 category.
6. The respondent stated that the information that has been sought in the RTI application has been provided along with the documentation pertaining to the medical examination in question and the issues that have been raised about the categorization of the individual employee. The respondent stated that the norms have been provided along with the details about the categorization of individual employee according to their medical status. The respondent stated that this information has been provided on 24.12.2011 to the appellant.
7.The respondent stated that they did not provide the personal medical examination record of the individual regarding whom the information was asked.
8. The appellant stated that he had sought information about the record focusing on the question whether the heart condition was congenital or was it acquired in the course of his employment in the railways.
9. The respondent stated that any individual record is private in nature that was exempted from disclosure in the RTI Act.
10. The appellant stated that his point of information is this that if the individual's heart condition had been properly diagnosed at the outset he would have never qualified for employment in the railways. The appellant stated that if the heart condition problem was congenital it would obviously have been detected right at the time of the medical examination at the time of entrance. The appellant said that the railway establishment as now covering up its past mistake of not detecting the congenital heart condition.
11. The respondent reiterated that any individual record is private and sensitive in nature that is why they had not disclosed it as third party information to the appellant under the RTI Act.
12. The approach taken by the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act.
13. The order of the first appellate authority is upheld and no further intervention of the Commission is required. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri M.L. Verma v. Chief Medical Director in Decision No.CIC/AD/A/2012/002867/VS/05967