CIC: Application for compensation of Disability Pension is still pending; Appellant needs to be compensated for loss, harassment and detriment suffered by her - CIC: Department of Social Welfare to pay compensation of Rs. 92,000/- to appellant in a week

O R D E R

1. The issue under consideration is the complaint dated 17.12.2024 for non-compliance of CIC’s order dated 22.07.2024 in the above matter.

2. The above-mentioned appeal of the appellant, Smt. Devki was disposed of by the Commission on 22.07.2024 wherein following observations and directions are given:

“The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records observes that the core contention of the Appellant in this case was unsatisfactory response and in turn non-receipt of disabled pension by the niece of Appellant within the stipulated time frame. For which, the Respondent claimed that as per their records the application for the pension has been approved on 13.05.2020 and the amount was remitted in the account of appellant’s niece w.e.f. 30.11.2023 onwards along with arrears from 01.01.2023, he further claimed that point-wise reply has already been provided to the Appellant.

The Commission notes that reply of the PIO given in the first instance is not very cogent and appears to be evasive as compared to the submissions tendered by the PIO during hearing. This can be gathered from the fact that the PIO nowhere in his reply brought forth the issue regarding implementation of office order of DSW as quoted during hearing. In this regard, although, a mala fide or deliberate intention of the erring PIO does not appear to be pertinent in the facts of the instant case, but the casual conduct of Mr. Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Supt.-cumPIO, Social Welfare (South), GNCTD, Delhi attracts severe admonition of the Commission.

Further, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Supt.-cum-PIO, Social Welfare (South), GNCTD, Delhi is directed to revisit the contents of RTI Application and provide a revised point wise reply along with relevant available information as per the provisions of RTI Act, coupled with the facts as stated by him during the hearing after accessing the same from the actual custodian invoking Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, if need be, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the event, the information sought for is not readily available in their office records then a categorical statement to this effect in writing should be reflected in the revised reply of the PIO. The said reply/information should be provided to the Appellant free of cost within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

First Appellate Authority (FAA) to ensure compliance of the directions.

Also, in the light of the arguments of Appellant regarding Section 4(1) of the RTI Act, an Advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Respondent Public Authority for upfront public disclosure of information in compliance with Section 4(1) of the RTI Act as recently directed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled Kishan Chand Jain v. UOI & Ors. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 990 of 2021. Let a copy of this order be placed before higher competent authority through FAA.

Now, as regards the relief of compensation, the Commission is of the view that Ms. Madhu (Appellant’s niece) is a physically challenged orphan girl having no independent means to carry out her daily activities and Appellant being her aunt is the only bread winner for Ms. Madhu and lacks the requisite means to take care of her in general and her special needs in particular. Appellant also appears to belong to EWS lady who must be facing challenges for upbringing her niece and that too more particularly during Covid-19 period when the entire world was going through extra ordinarily challenging times. Taking count of all these facts, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the case of Ms. Madhu must be dealt with by the Respondent Public Authority in a very sensitive way.

Because the Respondent Public Authority has paid the benefits from 01.01.2023 whereas RTI application was filed on 05.01.2023, therefore, apparently, prima facie case is not established for compensation due to non-furnishing of information. However, as per proceedings of the hearing, the respondent is directed to file reply to the claim of compensation along with the revised reply as furnished to the Appellant. This direction should be complied by the respondent within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”

3. The Appellant vide his letter dated 17.12.2024 reported non-compliance of the above order stating that the respondent has not complied with the order dated 22.07.2024.

Hearing on 14.01.2025

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present along with Ms. Madhu, Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj, and Ms. Amrita Johari, appeared in person.

Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra Maurya, PIO/Superintendent and Shri Abhisek Kaushik, Welfare Officer, appeared in person.

The appellant inter alia submitted that no information was provided by the respondent in compliance of the order dated 22.07.2024 of the Commission. The appellant reiterated that disability of pension of her niece was approved on 13.05.2020, which came to her knowledge only upon receipt of PIO’s reply dated 13.01.2023. The appellant informed that pension amount has been credited in the account from 30.11.2023 onwards that too during pendency of this Second Appeal. Further, the reason for withholding the pension of intervening period was not informed to the Appellant till date even after directions of the Commission. The appellant vehemently argued that she had already filed petition for compensation dated 16.07.2024 to the respondent which was forwarded to the Deputy Director (FAS), Department of Social Welfare, New Delhi on 18.07.2024 and no response was received from them till date. The main argument in the appellant’s non-compliance petition is reproduced as under:

“CIC के नद&श के बाद आज तक म ुझे वभाग से के वल उपय ु,त ईमेल (18.7.2024) %ा-त हु आ है। ईमेल के अवलोकन से पता चलता है 1क इसे आव3यक कारवाई के 4लए Deputy Director (FAS) को भेजा गया है। इसके अलावा इसम6 compensation के आवेदन का जवाब नहं हैऔर न ह इसम6 आरटआई आवेदन का संशो9धत ;बंदवार ु जवाब है। वभाग सेकोई अय जवाब %ा-त नहंहु आ हैऔर न ह Deputy Director (FAS) से।”

“CIC के निर्देश के बाद आज तक मुझे विभाग से केवल उपयुक्त ईमेल (18.7.2024) प्राप्त हुआ है। ईमेल के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि इसे आवश्यक कार्रवाई के लिए Deputy Director (FAS) को भेजा गया है। इसके अलावा, इस ईमेल में compensation के आवेदन का कोई जवाब नहीं है और न ही इसमें RTI आवेदन का संशोधित बंदवाब है। विभाग से कोई अन्य जवाब प्राप्त नहीं हुआ है और न ही Deputy Director (FAS) से।”

Loosely translated

"After the CIC's instructions, I have only received the relevant email (18.7.2024) from the department till today. Upon reviewing the email, it appears that it was sent to the Deputy Director (FAS) for necessary action. Additionally, there is no response regarding the compensation application, nor is there a revised reply to the RTI application. No further response has been received from the department or from the Deputy Director (FAS).

The prayer made by the appellant in her non-compliance petition dated 17.12.2024 is reproduced as under:

मैं आयोग से अनुरोध करती हूँ कि वह विभाग द्वारा आयोग के निर्देशों का पालन न करने के कारण विभाग के खिलाफ उचित कार्रवाई करे और:

a. 16.7.2024 को 'कंपेन्सेशन के लिए आवेदन' में दिए गए विवरण के अनुसार मुआवजा प्रदान करे। यह मामला मेरी भतीजी मधु से संबंधित है, जो 60% विकलांग (सेरेब्रल पाल्सी) और अनाथ है। वह मेरे साथ रहती है और मैं उसकी सभी जरूरतों का ख्याल रखती हूँ। हमारी आर्थिक स्थिति को देखते हुए, पेंशन राशि हमारे लिए बहुत महत्वपूर्ण है ताकि हम अपनी भतीजी की उचित देखभाल कर सकें।

b. पेंशन राशि पहले दिसंबर 2023 में 30,000 रुपये के लिए मंजूर की गई थी, जो जनवरी 2023 से दिसंबर 2023 तक के लिए थी (2,500 रुपये * 12 महीने = 30,000 रुपये)। इसके बाद, मधु को मासिक आधार पर पेंशन मिल रही है।

c. निर्णय नहीं लिया गया और आवेदन को मंजूरी देने में विलंब हुआ। आवेदन मई 2020 में मंजूर हुआ था। इसके बावजूद विभाग ने कोई जानकारी या कारण नहीं बताया कि जब आवेदन मई 2020 में स्वीकृत हुआ था, तो तब से पेंशन राशि का भुगतान क्यों नहीं किया गया। वास्तव में, विभाग को यह सूचित करना चाहिए था कि दिसंबर 2018 से पेंशन का भुगतान नहीं किया जा रहा है, क्योंकि उनके नागरिकता चार्टर के अनुसार एक बार स्वीकृत होने के बाद पेंशन उस महीने से देय होती है जो आवेदन के बाद का अगला महीना हो।

d. इसलिए, मैं 1,22,500 रुपये का मुआवजा मांग रही हूँ, क्योंकि विभाग द्वारा आवश्यक जानकारी उपलब्ध न कराने के कारण यह नुकसान हुआ है। मैं आयोग से अनुरोध करती हूँ कि वह हमें इस मामले में आई कठिनाइयों, उत्पीड़न और लागत के लिए भी मुआवजा प्रदान करे।

Loosely translated

I request the Commission to take action against the department for not complying with the Commission's instructions and:

a. Grant compensation as per the details provided in the 'Compensation Application' dated 16.7.2024. The matter concerns my niece, Madhu, who is 60% disabled (cerebral palsy) and an orphan. She lives with me, and I take care of all her needs. Given our financial difficulties, the pension amount is essential for us to provide her with appropriate care.

b. The pension amount was initially approved in December 2023 for a sum of Rs. 30,000, covering the period from January 2023 to December 2023 (Rs. 2,500 * 12 months = Rs. 30,000). Since then, Madhu has been receiving the pension on a monthly basis.

c. No decision was made, and the approval of the application was delayed. The application was approved in May 2020. However, the department has not provided any information or reason for the delay in the payment of the pension amount, which should have been disbursed since May 2020. In reality, the department should have informed us that the pension payments were not made since December 2018, as per their own citizenship rules, under which the pension should be paid from the month following the application approval.

d. Therefore, I am requesting a compensation amount of Rs. 1,22,500, as this loss has occurred due to the department's failure to provide the necessary information. I urge the Commission to grant compensation for the difficulties, harassment, and costs incurred in this matter

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had brought a written submission dated 13.01.2025 wherein revised reply was given and requested the Commission to place the same on record, a copy of which was served to the appellant during the hearing.

“In compliance of directions given in the order on dated 30.12.2024, in the matter of release of financial assistance for persons with disability in case of Ms. Madhu, the revised reply is hereby submitted as follows:

1. Your application, bearing number 26040000018323, was approved on 13.05.2020. You may also verify the status of your application on the eDistrict Portal.

2. Same as Answer 1 above.

3. Same as Answer 1 above.

4. Ms. Madhu's, application was forwarded to the concerned office i.e. Financial Assistance Section (FAS) for Disbursal, records of which are not maintained by this office. In the case of Ms. Madhu, financial assistance was remitted w.e.f. 30-11-2023. As informed by the FAS, delay in payment was due to wrong mapping of name and bank details.

Further, your kind attention is invited towards clause II of an office order of DSW, FAS wide No. F.41(452)/DSW/FAS/Policy Matters/2023- 24/7931-7944 Dated 04-08-2023 wherein it is stated that:

"in cases of remittance failure due to non-validation of Aadhaar/ Account or any other technical/non-technical reasons, arrears for a maximum period of one your only or actual arrear amount, whichever is less, shall be payable to the beneficiary".

In this regard, please be informed that the financial assistance has been regularly remitted since 30.11.2023, along with arrears for the period from 01.01.2023. The payments have been consistently made thereafter.

You may contact the following officer- District Officer (South) Department of Social Welfare Office, GNCTD, Kasturba Niketan Complex, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-24, Ph. No. ********27.”

The respondent invited attention of the Commission towards clause ii of an office order of DSW, FAS bearing No. F.41(452)/DSW/FAS/Policy Matters/2023- 24 7931-7944 dated 04.08.2023 wherein it was stated that:

“…..ii. In cases of remittance failure due to non-validation of Aadhaar/Account or any other technical/non-technical reasons, arrears for a maximum period of one year only or actual arrear amount, whichever is less, shall be payable to the beneficiary.”

The respondent submitted that as per the above office order, they had paid arrears of one year to the beneficiary i.e. niece of the appellant. They further submitted that information as available with them has been provided to the appellant.

Decision:

4. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, and hearing both the parties noted that the respondent vide letter dated 13.01.2025 provided revised point-wise reply to the appellant in compliance of the order dated 22.07.2024. There is a substantial delay in compliance with the above order of the Commission as the same had to be done within four weeks of the date of receipt of the said order. The respondent failed to explain the reasons for the delay caused in the matter. It is noted that a copy of the revised reply was served to the appellant during the hearing only.

As regards prayer of compensation of the appellant in the instant case, the Respondent submitted that they are under obligation to pay the arrears to the beneficiary for a maximum period of one year only or actual arrear amount, whichever is less. Accordingly, they had paid arrears to Ms. Madhu for the period from 01.01.2023 to November 2023 and financial assistance has been regularly remitted since 30.11.2023.

The criteria for processing or sanctioning of the application, under the scheme i.e. Financial Assistance to Persons with Special Needs- as per notification by Delhi Govt.- (popularly known as Disability Pension), is reproduced as below:

• “a) New applications under the Scheme are received on the e-district portal under Disability Pension Scheme.

• b) After submission of application, District Social Welfare Office will scrutinize the application and if required, call the applicant with relevant documents for verification.

• c) Normally, the applications are disposed off within 45 days of receipt of applications, unless circumstances dictate otherwise.

• d) The payment to new applicants, if sanctioned, is made with effect from the month subsequent to the month of the application. Once the pension is started, the assistance is remitted monthly thereafter.”

The Commission notes that the application made under the financial assistance scheme should have been disposed of within 45 days of receipt of applications, unless circumstances dictate otherwise. The same was not done in this case as pension of Appellant’s niece i.e. Ms. Madhu was applied in November 2018 and objections and queries from the respondent public authority were replied by the appellant on 16.04.2019. However, the sanction order was passed after more than a year i.e. on 13.05.2020.

As per the respondent’s FAS (Financial Assistance Section), the delay in payment was due to wrong mapping of name and banks details. However, it is noted that subsequent to filing of the second appeal to the Commission, the disability pension was released on the basis of the documents already available with them, which proves that the documents submitted by the appellant were complete in all respect and there was no further information or documentation due from the appellant side.

It was also noted that as per the Rules/citizen charter available on the respondent’s website, the payment to new applicants, if sanctioned, is made with effect from the month subsequent to the month of the application. Once the pension is started, the assistance is remitted monthly thereafter. This was also not followed in the case of Ms. Madhu. It is admitted that financial assistance of Ms. Madhu was approved on 13.05.2020 but pension amount had been credited in the account from 30.11.2023 onwards along with arrears for the period from 01.01.2023 i.e. only four days before the date of filing of the RTI application (dated 05.01.2023). The action of the respondent is clearly an afterthought to avoid accountability. Thus, the action is violative of the preamble of the RTI Act.

As per the Rules, the pension of the appellant’s niece should have been paid from December 2018 as she had applied for the same in the month of November 2018. However, it was not done in this case and reasons for the same were also not explained by the respondents.

During the hearing the Commission was apprised by the respondent that arrears payment has been restricted as per clause II of an office order of DSW, FAS wide No. F.41(452)/DSW/FAS/Policy Matters/2023-24/7931-7944 Dated 04-08-2023 wherein it is stated that:

"In cases of remittance failure due to non-validation of Aadhaar/ Account or any other technical/non-technical reasons, arrears for a maximum period of one your only or actual arrear amount, whichever is less, shall be payable to the beneficiary".

The Commission observed that the above order dated 04.08.2023 is in contravention to the Rules/Citizen Charter (mentioned above) made in this regard. The above order on one hand disempowers citizens, while on the other it empowers the clerks/officials to manipulate things with a view to seek rent.

Needless to mention that Ms. Madhu (Appellant’s niece) is

(i) a physically challenged person;

(ii) an orphan;

(iii) a member of scheduled caste;

(iv), a girl child;

(v) unmarried who cannot carry out her daily activities without assistance; and

(vi) has no independent means of livelihood.

The extraordinary circumstances and adverse conditions faced by Ms. Madhu establish her as the weakest of the week and poorest of the poor, being the most deprived citizen whose case deserved extra sensitivity, and it certainly could not have been dealt with in an ordinary manner by the respondent public authority in the department of Social Welfare. The appellant, being her aunt, is the only support Ms. Madhu has. She also physically assists her in her daily activities. She is a breadwinner herself and does not have the means to take care of her on a regular basis, particularly her special needs. The insensitivity as established based on the records is appalling to put it most euphemistically.

It is also noted that the period involved in the instant case was a lockdown period owing to Covid-19 pandemic wherein extra challenges were thrown upon Ms. Madhu and the appellant in their already challenging lives. It appears that the case of Ms. Madhu was not dealt with by the Respondent Public Authority with due sensitivity by a department which is supposed to be extra sensitive towards the people which are its raison d'etre.

The perusal of the records reveals that the application for compensation of Disability Pension to Ms. Madhu was forwarded to the Deputy Director (FAS), New Delhi and the same is still pending.

The actions of the respondent authorities are condemnable as the case was dealt with in a very casual and insensitive manner. The respondents failed to give justified reasons as to why compensation should not be awarded to the appellant.

Without going into the reasons for the issuance of the order ibid order dated 04.08.2023, the Commission finds it repugnant to the very principles of the RTI Act which demands transparency and accountability.

The Commission would like to invite attention of the parties towards a recent judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PIO, RP CELL, SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND ANR. W.P.(C) 4622/2019 decided on 24.07.2024 wherein the Court while upholding the order of the Commission for award of compensation held as under:

“21. This Court also notes that in rendering the Impugned decision, the CIC recognized the broader public interest that Respondent No. 2’s pursuits brought to light. CIC was of the opinion that the information sought was not solely for personal benefit but had implications for a significant segment of society—namely, the employees working around the parking areas and the visiting public who have been inadvertently affected by the parking charges. This collective impact compelled CIC to award compensation that addresses the interests of the affected community rather than an individual claim. Accordingly, the CIC adjudicated that the compensation should be paid to the Directorate General, SCOPE, recognizing that Respondent No. 2, along with other similarly situated employees, has endured financial detriment due to the unauthorized parking fees.

22. The intent behind the award of compensation may be deserving, however, the scope of compensation under Section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act is limited. The provision is specifically tailored to address losses or detriments suffered directly by the complainant due to the non-compliance by the Public Authority with the Act. This provision empowers the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission to mandate VERDICTUM.IN W.P.(C) 4622/2019 compensation for any detriment the complainant has personally suffered. Section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act reads as follows: “(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to— (b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;”

23. Thus, while the CIC possesses the authority to award compensation to information seeker, it is imperative that such compensation directly correlates with the personal detriment experienced by the complainant— Respondent No. 2 in this case. Awarding compensation based on losses suffered by parties other than the complainant stretches beyond the intended scope of Section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act. Nonetheless, given the consequential financial losses borne by Respondent No. 2, the compensation of INR 50,000 is deemed reasonable and just even if it is directed to be payable exclusively to Respondent No. 2. In the opinion of the court, even if the losses suffered by individuals other than the complainant/Respondent No,2 is not factored in, compensation of INR 50,000/- is justified. This amount accounts for the financial losses incurred by Respondent No. 2, including parking charges, legal fees, and other costs associated with pursuing the issue following the denial of information by the Petitioner.

24. Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that they are agreeable to the directions issued in the Impugned order for payment of compensation to the Director General, SCOPE which is to be utilized for benefit of public good. Instead of claiming compensation for personal use, Respondent No. 2 has chosen to serve a broader community benefit, thereby reinforcing the spirit of the RTI Act. The Court expresses its appreciation for this VERDICTUM.IN W.P.(C) 4622/2019 commendable approach.

25. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. This payment is deemed to be awarded in favour of the Respondent No.2...”

Taking into count all abovementioned facts and records filed in the case, the Commission finds it just and reasonable that the appellant needs to be compensated for loss, harassment and detriment suffered by her. Therefore, the respondent public authority, i.e. Department of Social Welfare, is directed to pay to the appellant compensation of Rs. 92,000/- (Rupees Ninety-two Thousand only) through pay order/demand draft within a week from the date of receipt of this order and file a compliance with the Commission, immediately thereafter, through the link given in the hearing notice.

The Bench has been informed during the hearing that the PIO appearing today is not the officer concerned who has to process and release the compensation amount. It is done by the officer at the district level. Accordingly, the District Social Welfare Officer (South), Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT Delhi, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and Deputy Director Financial Assistance Scheme (All types), Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT Delhi, ITO, New Delhi are directed to comply with the above directions.

FAA to ensure compliance of the above directions. The non-compliance petition is disposed of.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ms. Devki v. Supdt. (South), Department of Social Welfare, New Delhi, CIC/DSWGD/A/2023/119725; Order dated 14.01.2025