Date of Hearing : 19.03.2025
Date of Decision : 19.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.11.2023 PIO replied on : 13.12.2023 First Appeal filed on : 20.12.2023 First Appellate Order on : 19.01.2024 2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 21.02.2024
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.11.2023 seeking the following information:-
"FCI Headquarters, New Delhi, had issued an SOP dated 28.04.2023 in respect of the retired employees who are under the FCI Post Retirement Medical Scheme to upload the latest life certificate into the FCI PRMS portal every year. Now, therefore, the applicant requests to inform under Section 6(1) the following.
1. Password for logging into the above-mentioned portal." The CPIO, Manager (Pers.), Divisional Office, FCI vide letter dated 13.12.2023 replied as under:-
"As per SOP issued by FCI, Hqrs. New Delhi dated 28.04.2023 regarding post retirement medical scheme, the password for logging into the FCI PRMS portal is- Abcd@123."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.12.2023 stating he was aggrieved to find that his credentials had not been uploaded. The FAA, Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, FCI vide order dated 19.01.2024 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
1 / 3
1
Page 2 of 2 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
An undated submission has been received from the CPIO addressing the issue raised by the Appellant in details concluding that the information and PRMS related issue are resolved in due time and the grievance made by applicant hasn't any base. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Shri Gautam Kumar - Manager (P), FCI was present through video conference during hearing.
The Appellant chose not to attend the hearing while the Respondent reiterated contents from the PIO's reply stating that information sought by the Appellant had been duly provided from available records, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that the appropriate response had been duly provided to the Appellant, in response to his query. The response of the PIO is legally appropriate and the Appellant has not appeared during hearing to contest the case. In the given circumstances, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मखु्य सचूना आयकु्त) Authenticated true copy
(अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत)
S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535
2 / 3
2
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 1 / 13 3
3