BW Legal World: New Delhi: Tuesday, 09 May 2023.
The Delhi High Court recently held that the Chief Information Commissioner had no jurisdiction to direct reimbursement of medical expenses under the Right To Information Act, 2005.
The Writ Petition filed on behalf of Steel Authority of India Ltd. challenged the powers of the Chief Information Commissioner under the RTI Act, 2005 on the ground that after the recording that the information had been provided, the CIC could not have directed that SAIL had to give reimbursement in a time bound manner.
The CIC had passed the following direcion:
“7. In view of the above, the Commission advises the appellant to approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance. The Commission also directs the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD), SAIL, New Delhi, who is entrusted with the responsibility of redressing the grievance of SAIL employees, to ensure that the appellant’s grievance is redressed in a time-bound manner as well as to put in place a policy to address the issue relating to reimbursement of medical expenses to ex-employees of SAIL in eventualities such as non-renewal of mediclaim schemes etc.”
While setting aside the direction given in para 7 of the order of the CIC under challenge, the Delhi High Court on perusal of the records observed that the jurisdiction of the CIC under the RTI Act, 2005 would not have extended to directing reimbursement of medical expenses.
SAIL was represented by Jurisperitus Law Offices through its Partner, Sushil Kumar Singh and Associate Pepakayala Geetanjali.
The Delhi High Court recently held that the Chief Information Commissioner had no jurisdiction to direct reimbursement of medical expenses under the Right To Information Act, 2005.
The Writ Petition filed on behalf of Steel Authority of India Ltd. challenged the powers of the Chief Information Commissioner under the RTI Act, 2005 on the ground that after the recording that the information had been provided, the CIC could not have directed that SAIL had to give reimbursement in a time bound manner.
The CIC had passed the following direcion:
“7. In view of the above, the Commission advises the appellant to approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance. The Commission also directs the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD), SAIL, New Delhi, who is entrusted with the responsibility of redressing the grievance of SAIL employees, to ensure that the appellant’s grievance is redressed in a time-bound manner as well as to put in place a policy to address the issue relating to reimbursement of medical expenses to ex-employees of SAIL in eventualities such as non-renewal of mediclaim schemes etc.”
While setting aside the direction given in para 7 of the order of the CIC under challenge, the Delhi High Court on perusal of the records observed that the jurisdiction of the CIC under the RTI Act, 2005 would not have extended to directing reimbursement of medical expenses.
SAIL was represented by Jurisperitus Law Offices through its Partner, Sushil Kumar Singh and Associate Pepakayala Geetanjali.
.JPG)
.JPG)
