Appellant was asked to appear for written & oral examination for promotion in view of a decision by Honorable Patna High Court & desired to know the para / portions of the order on the basis of which this decision was taken - CIC: appeal dismissed

Facts:

1. The appellant, Shri Rajeev Ranjan Sinha, submitted RTI application dated 06 June 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Patna; seeking information in relation to decision of taking examination of the appellant by the respondent insurance company in compliance of the judgment dated 04 July 2011 pronounced by Honorable Patna High Court in LPA Case No1183/ 2010.

2. Vide order dated 06 July 2012, CPIO furnished the information to the appellant. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred first appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dated 27 August 2012. Vide order dated 17 October 2012, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision.

3. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the Public Authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri Rajeev Ranjan Sinha and respondents Shri Rajeev Jaiswal, APIO and Shri Mahendra Kumar, Customer Relationship Manager and FAA were present at the hearing and made submissions from Patna.

5. The appellant submitted that he had been asked to appear for written and oral examination for promotion in view of a decision dated July 4, 2011 and desired to know as to the para / portions of the order on the basis of which this decision was taken. The respondents submitted that the decision was made in view of Hon’ble Patna High court order.

6. The respondent CPIO further submitted that appellant had approached the Honorable Patna High Court in his present reexamination dispute with the OICL. The Court ordered the OICL to reconsider the appellant’s case as per the prescribed procedure which in turn advised the RO, Patna to take reexamination of the appellant. The appellant then filed a contempt petition against the OICL’s decision in the Patna High Court (Division Bench) which was dismissed vide order dated 28/3/2012. The second Contempt Petition of the appellant was also dismissed by the Patna High Court (Division Bench). Further, a copy of the HO note/letter to the DO, Patna (advising the RO, Patna to take reexamination of the appellant) has already been provided to the appellant. The appellant has filed a third Contempt Petition before the Patna High Court, which is currently pending.

Decision Notice

7. In light of the submissions above, Commission upholds the CPIO’s and FAA order as the information sought, as available with the Public Authority has been already provided. The appellant may approach the suitable forum for his grievance redressal, if any. The present appeal is dismissed.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Rajeev Ranjan Sinha v. OICL in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000248/MP