CPIO to give affidavit about the members who are availing medical and LTC facilities instead of allowing the applicant to see the files

Mr.Babu Lal the Applicant filed an RTI application dt.16.6.08 with the CPIO, DoP, Kanpur. He requested for inspection of LTC and Medical files of one Mr. Ram Kishan Kori. The CPIO replied on 11.7.08 stating that Mr. Ram Kishan Kori has denied in writing disclosure of information about himself to the Applicant. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant file his first appeal on 30.7.08 stating that he has requested for the inspection since it was related to a corruption case. The Appellate Authority replied on 18.11.08 stating that Mr. Kori has clearly given in writing, as per Section 11(1) of the RTI Act that information about him should not be given to the Applicant. The AA upheld the decision of the CPIO. Aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed his second appeal dt.27.1.09 before the CIC. In his second appeal, he stated that Mr. Ram Kishan Kori’s wife is late Mrs. Phoolmati. However, Mr. Ram Kishan Kori has shown Ms. Rajeshwari Devi as the family pensioner after the death of his wife and that Ms. Rajeshwari Devi happens to be his (the Appellant’s) wife. He stated that the son Mr. Arun Kumar is also an illegal member. His contention is that Mr. Ram Kishan Kori has been availing of LTC and medical facilities in the name of Ms. Rajeshwari Devi and Mr. Arun Kumar, showing Ms. Rajeshwari Devi as his wife when the truth is that Ms. Rajeswari Devi is still married to him(the Applicant). According to him Mr. Kori is planning to avail family pension and other benefits with the help of the family pensioner Ms. Rajeshwari Devi and therefore has included her name and that of Mr. Arun Kumar in his family pension papers. For these reasons he has requested for inspection of the LTC and medical files.

?The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for March 25, 2009. Mr. Rameshwar Bajpai, ASPos (HQ) andMr. S.P. Pathak, SS(LC) represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.


The Respondents submitted that Mr. Kori has denied disclosure of information about himself and about Mrs. Rajeshwari Devi to the Appellant. The Appellant submitted that he and Mrs. Rajeshswari Devi are not yet divorced and he is paying for the monthly maintenance of Mrs. Rajeshwari Devi, as per court’s order, although she has been living away from him , with Mr. Kori for many years. His contention was that while taking the maintenance amount for herself, she is also trying to avail pension benefits , LTC and medical benefits as Mr. Kori’s wife and by having her name included in the pension papers of Mr. Kori . The Respondents stated that the name of Mrs. Rajeshwari Devi is not mentioned in the pension papers submitted by Mr.Kori and that they are not sure that whether she is availing LTC and medical facilities as wife of Mrs. Kori.

After hearing the arguments put forth by both parties, and keeping in view Mr. Kori’s submission that information about him should not be disclosed to the Applicant, the Commission directs the CPIO to ascertain whether Mrs. Rajeshwari Devi is availing medical and LTC facilities or not as a result of living with Mr. Kori and to provide an affidavit to the Appellant signed by the Appellate Authority stating the exact position. The affidavit should also include information with regard to inclusion of Ms. Rajeshwari’s name in the pension particulars and pension payment order of Mr. Kori. All information to be provided by 15th April, 2009.

The above case was again heared on 1.2.2010

The Appellant was present during the hearing. Mr. P.K. Tripathi, Director, Postal Services, Kanpur cum Appellate Authority and Dr. Arun Yadav, ASP (East) represented the Public Authority.


The Appellant submitted that he has not received the affidavit from the Public Authority as directed by the Commission in order dated 25.03.09. The
Respondent, however, submitted that he did not furnish the affidavit as ordered by the Commission since he thought that that there is no need to provide the same as he had already furnished the information vide his reply on receipt of copy of the second appeal. The Commission while noting that the decision of the Commission has not been complied with, directs the Respondent to provide the Affidavit to the Appellant by end February, 2010 as directed in the order dated 25.03.09 and also to show cause why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day should not be imposed on him for not complying with the Commission’s decision dated 25.03.09 and to appear with an explanation before the Commission on 22nd March, 2010 at 10.30 a.m.

Decision No CIC/AD/A//09/00157 dated 25.3.2009

Decision No CIC/AD/A/2009/000157 dated 1.2.2010