www.PunjabColleges.com
Largest database of Universities and Colleges in India situated in more than 9000 towns.
Home   Contact Us
Enter College / University Name or City:
Punjab Colleges
Pvt Institutes in Punjab


Government Medical College, Amritsar, Punjab



Contact


Government Medical College, Amritsar, Punjab
Address:Grand Trunk Road
Amritsar (District Amritsar)
Punjab, India
Pin Code : 143001


Government Medical College, Amritsar Punjab is a recognised institute / college. Government Medical College, Amritsar Punjab was established on / in 1864.


Principal of Government Medical College, Amritsar Punjab is Dr Karnail Singh, Dr SS Shargill.

Government Medical College, Amritsar Punjab is situated in Amritsar of Punjab state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Amritsar comes under Amritsar Tehsil, Amritsar District.

Fax # of Government Medical College, Amritsar Punjab is +91-183-2426506.

Mobile No(s) of concerned persons at Government Medical College, Amritsar Punjab are +91-95010-04897.

email ID(s) is Government Medical College Amritsar Punjab

Website of Government Medical College, Amritsar Punjab is http://www.gmc.edu.in/.


Contact Details of Government Medical College, Amritsar Punjab are : Telephone: +91-183-2421977, 2426918
Principal: Dr Jaswinderpal Kaur Shergill (in September 2007)

Medical Superintendent:
Dr. R.P.S. Boparai
Telephone: +91-183-2222173, Fax : +91-183-2562054

Nursing College:
Principal: Mrs. Raj Rani +91-98767-25386 Residence Telephone: +91-183-2425386


Courses

MBBS, MD, MS, Bachelor of Science in Nursing, (B.Sc. Nursing), Bachelor of Science in Medical Laboratory technology (B.Sc.MLT), Bachelor of Science in Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry (B.Sc. Medical), Master of Science in Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry (M.Sc. Medical), Diploma in Medical Laboratory technology (DMLT) Diploma in Radiography (DR)
Diploma in Anesthesia
Diploma in Child Health
Diploma in Clinical Pathology
Diploma in Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Diploma in Ophthalmology
Diploma in Tuberculosis & Chest Diseases
MD - Anaesthesiology
MD - Bio-Chemistry
MD - Dermatology, Venereology & Leprosy
MD - General Medicine
MD - Microbiology
MD - Pharmacology
MD - Physiology
MD - Psychiatry
MD - Radio Diagnosis
MD - Social & Preventive Medicine / Community Medicine
MD - Tuberculosis & Respiratory Diseases
MS - Anaesthesia
MS - Anatomy
MS - ENT
MS - General Surgery
MS - Ophthalmology
MS - Orthopaedics


Number of seats in Government Medical College, Amritsar Punjab is 150 Seats.
Government Medical College, Amritsar Punjab runs course(s) in Medical, Nursing stream(s).

Government Medical College is affiliated with Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot (Punjab)


Profile of Government Medical College

The Government Medical College Amritsar is one of the oldest and a premier medical education institute of country. The college has a cherished history and earned for itself a place of pride in the field of medical education and patient care in the region. It traces its foundation as a Medical School in Lahore as early as 1864. The School continued to work in the capital city of undivided Punjab till its subsequent relocation to the holy city of Amritsar in 1920. The L.S.M.F (Licentiate of State Medical Faculty) was granted at the end of a four year course to entrants who were initially admitted after passing their matriculation.

The School was upgraded to the status of Medical College in 1943, the foundation stone was laid by Lt. Col. Nawab Khijar Tiwana, premier of Punjab on February 1, 1944. The Medical College was named after His Excellency Sir Bertrand James Glancy the then Governor of the state. The new Medical College started awarding the M.B.; B.S. degree which empowered the holders to practice medicine and surgery. The Victoria Jubilee (V.J.) Hospital, named in commemoration of the Jubilee celebrations of H.E. Queen Victoria's rule, began functioning as a general hospital in 1891, it was later attached to the Medical College and has now been renamed as Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital. The remarkable building houses a number of important departments.

At the time of partition of country, the Medical College, Amritsar was only three years old. Dr A.N. Goyal (1947-51) was the first principal of the college after independence. The College and its attached group of hospitals were assigned the onerous responsibility of providing succor and medical aid to the refugees who arrived in the country in a state of dejection. The medical teams under the proficient leadership of Lt. Col. B.S. Nat, Medical Superintendent of Victoria Jubilee Hospital provided unparallel care to the sick and wounded. The quality of services rendered by the College despite the paucity of resources earned it laurels both in India and abroad and bolstered its premiership.

Lt. Col. B.S. Nat was later promoted as Director Health Services and Education Punjab. The V.J. Hospital owes much of its expansion to Col. Nat. The college continues to celebrate the annual Col. Nat-All India Inter Medical College Hockey Tournament in his memory. The Medical College started awarding Post graduate degree and diplomas after India achieved independence. Philanthropic organization too came forwarded to help in the expansion of the college. A separate pediatric hospital was set up with the help of Ram Saran Dass Parkash Wati Kakkar Trust in 1950. A TB Sanatorium, the Ram Lal Free Eye and Ear Nose and Throat Hospital and separate Orthopedics ward were built with the help of other charitable Trusts.

The renowned Mental Hospital, named after Dr. Vidya Sagar was also attached to Medical College to help provide training to medical students in the subject of psychiatry. The first two blocks of the college hostel called A and B Blocks were built in 1929. These aesthetically designed hostel buildings built on the pattern of Cambridge University have withstood the ravages of time and invitingly face the college play grounds. Later, other hostel blocks were added to meet the requirements of the students.

In order to meet the growing needs of the College, the Guru Nanak Dev Hospital was built in 1974, adjacent to the college complex. This three-storey hospital houses a spacious out-door section, emergency wards, and various speciality and super-specialty departments. Emergency medical services are also run from the premises of this hospital. A round the clock clinical laboratory, radiological and allied diagnostic facilities are also available. A total of 951 beds are available for teaching and training of under graduate, post graduate and paramedical students.

A rehabilitation section and an artificial limb fitting centre were added to Orthopedics department in 1978. A 200 bedded Emergency and superspeciality Block is under construction and is likely to begin functioning shortly. Over the years the school emerged as a nursery of medical teachers who have fanned out in the country to set up new teaching institutions in order to meet the growing needs of the nation.

The Medical College and Guru Nanak Dev Hospital is spread over an area of 163 acres and has sufficient land for future expansion. The institution has retained its eminence in providing excellent patient care to a vast area of North India including Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and even the neighbouring country of Afghanistan. The Institution has also provided brilliant doctors and medical scientists, not only to prestigious institution of India like All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh but also to many institutes in the world, particularly U.K, U.S.A and Canada.

The launch of college website is part of conscious effort of this old yet vibrant institution in order to be a part of the technological and electronic revolution. We set out to incorporate information technology by spearheading the setting up of an Information Technology Centre (ITC) in 2003 that generated an enthusiastic response both from the teaching faculty and students. The Centre also houses a two-way satellite linkage provided by Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) for implementation of Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme, telemedicine and networking with other premier health and health informatics institutes of the country.

The modernization drive of the college has broader dimensions. In May 2007, the foundation stone of a state-of-the-art radiotherapy centre was laid down by Honorable Mr. Tikshan Sud, Minister for Medical Education and Research, Punjab. The Centre will provide specialized care to a large number of cancer patients in this part of the country.

The launching of the college website coincides with the plans of State Government to step up quality of patient care, research and education in this college. I am confident this portal will help promote networking amongst institutions, faculty members and alumni and will showcase the research work being conducted in various departments of the college. In addition it will facilitate the provision and dissemination of information to the public.

Stuff



Images / newspaper cuttings related to Government Medical College

Doctor caught in bribe issue (Government Medical College)
News: 6th August, 2014
Doctor caught in bribe issue
Students get dead body from hostel bathroom (Government Medical College)
News: 31st July, 2014
Students get dead body from hostel bathroom

Medical student found dead in hostel (News)
MBBS seats increased, Vini Mahajan (News)
Students protest against Principal (News)
Nurses faint in Operation theatre (News)
Seniors use slangs on ragging time (News)
Ragging in Medical College (News)
Medical ke 2 students hostel se bahar (News)
Govt Medical Colleges to set up super speciality departments (News)
Patients beat doctor (News)
Medical students protest move to extend duration of MBBS course (News)
Lecturer Dr Era Verma absent (Public Notice)
PGI signed with Punjab Govt (News)
AMC start heart surgeries with PGI help (News)
Amritsar and Patiala faculty will do training in TMC (News)
Ex Principal convicted in Kidney scam (News)
Sweeping work started (News)
Auction for Shop (Advertisement)
Annual Conference of old students (News)
Inauguration of Hostel (News)
VIP duty hi karenge Medical College ke doctor (News)
Employees dharna for demands (News)
Physician (Job Vacancy)
Dr Neki awarded with FRCP London award (News)
Senior Residents ki vacancy bharne ki prakirya shuru (News)
Cancer de ilaaj lai 300 crore di yojna nu parvangi (News)
5 bones breaked of Sarabhjeet Singh (News)
Ragging in Medical College (News)
Dr Neki new member of Board Studies (News)
Medical Students ki research ke liye 2 logo dvara body daan (News)
Govt Medical College wich Principals di vacancy hi nahi (News)
Emergency cant spend above Rs 500 (News)
Hospital me paidal rasta bna (News)
Govt to allow medical colleges to retain earnings (News)
First Barsi of Sat Parkash Singh Bedi etc (Bhog etc)
MBBS seats will extended in Medical Colleges of Patiala and Amritsar (News)
House Surgeon Physicians (Job Vacancy)
Dr Neki Glasgo College ke Fellow bane (News)
Bacho ko Diploma karvane ke naam par hazaro liye (News)
More MBBS seats but no extra funds (News)
Guru Nanak Dev Hospital me banti hai nakli chabbiya (News)
Dr Neki England and Ireland se vapis India lote (News)
Medical College nu kahma parivar vallo body daan di anokhi misal (News)
Life time Achievement Award to Dr Risham (News)
Medical Colleges wich seats vadaun lai uprale jari (News)
Lecturer and Asstt Professor etc (Job Vacancy)
MBBS, PG ki fees me hogi badhotri (News)
Amritsar medical college preparing state cancer atlas (News)
Antim Ardas of Dr Paramjit Singh Grewal etc (Bhog etc)
House Surgeon and Physicians (Job Vacancy)
Dr Smt Vijay Laxmi Gulati etc (Bhog etc)
MBBS Student ne ki mama ki hatya (News)
MBBS Student kills uncle cop over money (News)
Profession ke prati imandar bane Doctor (News)
Annual Convocation 2012 (Convocation)
Inauguration of Bebe Nanld Mother and Child care centre (News)
In Memory of Late Sh Gurnam Dass and Late Smt Sumitra Devi (Bhog etc)
Suspend 5 Student of Medical College for Ragging (News)
Principal Secy told to fill posts at Amritsar medical college (News)
Seats ki bhadotri me grant ka adanga (News)
4 Students 2 months ke liye suspended (News)
Medical Graduates Registered (Advertisement)
Amritsar de Medical College nu Milega AIIMS da darja (News)
The Medical graduatesRegistered with the punjab medical Council (Advertisement)
Tully internship doctor bhide (News)
AIIMS nahi aya, doctor bhagne lage (News)
College Principal suspension to stay, says Sud (News)
Principal Sacked (News)
Gasping For Breath (News)
Medical Graduates (Advertisement)
Medical college may help people stay younger (News)
Punjab de sarkari Medical College nu Notice (News)
Doctorate in Love (Profile)
Medical students protest submit memorandum (News)

Media coverage of Government Medical College, Amritsar Punjab, Punjab

Mental illness high among prisoners

New Delhi: There is a high prevalence of psychiatric illness among prisoners lodged in Indian jails and it isnt surprising that more than half of them had history of substance abuse.

According to a study published in the latest edition of the Indian Journal of Psychiatry, the psychiatric morbidity among prisoners is substantially higher than in the general population. Most inmates have a number of defined problem areas, with substance use, depression and anxiety disorders most prevalent.

The study conducted by doctors of the Government medical college, Amritsar, and MM College, Haryana, in the Central jail, Amritsar, found psychiatric illness in 23.8% of the 500 convicts lodged there. These figures are similar to some other studies conducted in other jails in the country.

In terms of diagnostic breakup, depression was the most common psychiatric disorder (18%). Dysthymia (a chronic type of depression) was found in 2% of the prisoners. The extent of schizophrenia was 0.4% though some other studies have found much higher incidence of schizophrenia. But authors of this study claimed that this variation was due to different study design as previous studies were done on criminals admitted to mental hospital, or on undertrials who were referred to medical college, while this was done in jail.

Interestingly, 56.4% of these prisoners had history of substance abuse or dependence prior to detention — out of this 39.8% were addicted to alcohol and 5% were multiple substance abusers. At least 11.2% of the prisoners were dependent on various substances.
The authors argued that high rate of common psychiatric disorders calls for the use of improved psychiatric screening instruments, improved assessment and treatment capacities in prison and an increased number of psychiatric inpatient facilities to care for inmates who are too unwell to be treated in prison.

Agreeing with the study, Sunil gupta, spokesperson of the Tihar Jail in Delhi, said that most of those who come in conflict with law are people who are not normal mentally. They are either in extreme state of depression or anger. No normal person can commit serious crimes, said Gupta. A lack of impulse control, suspiciousness, disinhibition, paranoia, inability to trust others, delusions and hallucinations are some other reasons.

Among prisoners with psychiatric illness, maximum (74%) of the criminals came from lower and middle socio-economic classes. In the current study, 500 convicted prisoners were interviewed, out of which 20 were females, mainly due the fact that majority of the crimes are committed by males.

As much as 76% of the prisoners were from rural areas, 51.4% of them were illiterate or had their education up to primary. The study was carried out from 1, April 2003 to 30 th September 2004. The age of the prisoners ranged from 18-60 years. The mean age of the prisoners was 36.38 years, 50 % of the prisoners belonged to nuclear families.

Aditya Kumar Sood versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 32-33-34,SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Dr.Aditya Kumar Sood,
H.No.161, Ward No.10,
Lakkar Mandi Near Shakti Public
School, Doraha, Distt. Ludhiana. Complainant

Versus

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal Medical College,
Amritsar. Respondent

CC No.1370 of 2011
ORDER

Present: - None on behalf of the parties.

Complainant filed a complaint with the Commission on 4.5.2011, with respect to his RTI application dated 28.3.2011, made to the address of PIO, O/o Principal Medical College, Amritsar, seeking information regarding supply of treasury vouchers for the period from 07/88 and 03/89, vide Department of Health and Family Welfare.

2. As none has appeared on behalf of the parties, one more opportunity is granted to the parties to pursue their case.

3. The case is adjourned to 02.11.2011 at 2 PM for compliance.

4. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh (Mrs. Jaspal Kaur) Dated: 07.09.2011 State Information Commissioner.

Nanak Chand versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(98557-08888)
Sh. Nanak Chand,
VPO Lakhan ke Padda,
Distt. Kapurthala- 144802.
…Appellant
Versus

1. Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
Medical College,
Amritsar

2. Public Information Officer,
First Appellate Authority,
O/o Director Medical Education & Research,
Punjab, Chandigarh
…Respondents

AC - 441/11
Order

Present:
Complainant Sh. Nanak Chand in person
For the Respondent: Sh. Dr. Surinder Pal, PIO (9780-662133)

Today, Dr. Surinder Pal, PIO appeared on behalf of the respondent and made the following written submissions: -

“Complainant is of the opinion that information about service book and Pay bill is incomplete. As the PIO of Govt. Medical College, Amritsar, I will provide the pending information, if any, within 10 days. Please direct the complainant to come to my office to collect the information with prior intimation.”
Complainant is advised to visit the Respondent office. Respondent is directed to provide the remaining information to the complainant during his visit.

With this assurance of the Respondent, complainant expresses satisfaction.
Seeing the merits, therefore, the case is hereby closed and disposed of.
Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 11.08.2011 State Information Commissioner

Nanak Chand versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(98557-08888)
Sh. Nanak Chand,
VPO Lakhan ke Padda,
Distt. Kapurthala- 144802. …Appellant

Versus

1. Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
Medical College,
Amritsar
2. Public Information Officer,
First Appellate Authority,
O/o Director Medical Education & Research,
Punjab, Chandigarh …Respondents

AC - 441/11
Order

Present: Appellant Sh. Nanak Chand in person.
For the respondent: Sh. Surinder Singh, APIO, Medical College, Amritsar.

Vide application dated 30.09.2010, Sh. Nanak Chand sought the following information: -

“1. Regarding Smt. Dalbir Kaur, DMLT working in Govt. Medical College, Amritsar.
2. Copy of joining report.
3. Copy of order if any promotion was given to her;
4. Option form given under the Punjab Fifth Pay Commission Report.
5. Pay fixed on 01.01.2006;
6. Copies of all pay bills
(Punjab Fifth Pay Commission Report)”

First appeal with the appellate authority has been filed on 06.12.2010 and the instant second appeal has been filed with the Commission on 09.05.2011 as no information was provided.

The appellant states that no information has been received by him so far.

Sh. Surinder Singh, APIO while appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that as some corrections were required to be effected in the service book of Smt. Dalbir Kaur, the same is with the authorities concerned and hence no information could be provided. However, Sh. Nanak Chand stated that the Principal of the Medical College, Amritsar is competent to carry out the corrections required, if any.

Appellant further submitted that upon the implementation of 5th Pay Commission Report, salaries of all the government employees in the State of Punjab have already been revised. Respondent submitted that the very first salary bill of Smt. Dalbir Kaur with the revised pay scale has not yet been prepared and hence no pay details with the revised pay scales can be provided.

Sh. Nanak Chand made the following written submissions: -

“It is submitted that incomplete information has been provided in response to my original application submitted on 30.09.2010. The following information is still pending: -

(i) Service Book of Smt. Dalbir Kaur, DMLT since her joining till date;

(ii) A copy of joining report of Smt. Dalbir Kaur;

(iii) Copy of any promotion(s) granted to her;

(iv) Copies of pay bills pertaining to Smt. Dalbir Kaur upon implementation of the Punjab Fifth Pay Commission Report”

During the hearing, information on point no. 5 stands provided. Regarding the remaining information, respondent has made the following statement:

“Respectfully, it is submitted that response to the information sought by the appellant was sent vide letter no. 34639 dated 02.11.2010. Thereafter, he pointed out certain discrepancies and information on the same was provided vide letter no. 18740 dated 08.06.2011. The salary of the concerned official was revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Vide Order no. 20831-32/PF dated 27.06.2011 of the Principal, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar, the pay of the said official has been worked out as per the new pay-scales and a copy of the same is sent herewith.”

The objections raised by the appellant be removed before the next date fixed.

In the next hearing, the PIO Dr. Surinder Pal is directed to appear in person to explain the matter.

For further proceedings, to come up on 11.08.2011 at 11.00 A.M. in the Chamber. Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 28.06.2011 State Information Commissioner

Aditya Sood versus Government Medical College Amritsar



Aditya Sood versus Government Medical College Amritsar



SURJIT PAL Versus STATE OF PUNJAB Criminal Writ Petition 1251 of 2010

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of Decision: 28.2.2011

Surjit Pal …Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab …Respondent

CORAM:
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

Present:
By Post.
Mr. B.S. Sra Additional Advocate General Punjab for the respondent.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia J. (Oral)
An application received from Surjit Pal through post by the Registry of this Court on 1.7.2010 has been treated as a writ petition. It is stated therein that his daughter Amanjyoti who was a student of Medical College Amritsar is not traceable and has been unlawfully detained by Sawinder Singh son of Dyal Singh and his parents.

In response thereto Gurmej Singh Deputy Superintendent of Police Rural-II Gurdaspur has filed a reply by way of his affidavit wherein he has stated that daughter of the petitioner had solemnized marriage with Sawinder Singh and both of them had approached the Court of District & Sessions Judge Gurdaspur and made a prayer for protection of their life and liberty.

Since daughter of the petitioner had lawfully married Sawinder Singh it cannot be said that she was in an unlawful custody.

Hence no further directions are called for and the present writ petition is dismissed.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge

NEETU SAINI Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS LPA 1649 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

LPA 1649 of 2010

Date of Decision: 17.02.2011

Neetu Saini ... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present :
Mr. B.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for
Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Karamjit Saini, Advocate.

RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral)
The appellant was a candidate in a common medical entrance test for the academic sessions 2010. On the basis of the marks secured, she became entitled for admission in Ist year MBBS course in the Government Medical College, Amritsar. While the admission process was on, the minimum qualifying marks for physically handicapped candidates was reduced from 50% to 45%.

The respondent No.4 who belongs to the said category and had secured 46% marks became eligible for admission in the Government Medical College. The petitioner accordingly was offered admission in a private medical college which she did not take. Aggrieved, the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen was filed by the present appellant.

The short contention advanced is that the alteration of the
criteria for the physically handicapped persons by reduction of qualifying marks having been made after the commencement of the counselling process, the entitlement of the appellant-writ petitioner could not have been adversely affected by the same. In the facts of the present case, we do not consider it necessary to go into the said question as, admittedly, no direction from the Court can be issued to admit the petitioner to the course for the Session 2010 which has already commenced and the last date for admission, under any circumstances, stipulated by the Medical Counselling of India as approved by the Supreme Court is over on 30.09.2010.

The only question, therefore, would survive is the entitlement of the petitioner for admission to the next academic session on the strength of her performance in the examination that was conducted for the academic session 2010. Though in certain judgments i.e. Aman Deep Jaswai Versus State of Punjab and others (2006) 9 SCC 597 the Apex Court has tried to carve out exceptions to the above Rule in order to mitigate the hardships that may have occasioned to a deserving candidate because of fixation of a cut off date for admission i.e. 30.09.2010 of every year, we are of the view that the said exceptions will not apply to the present case. The appellant, admittedly was offered admission in an alternative Institution for the present academic session itself, which was declined.

That apart, any direction for admission in the next academic
year on the basis of the performance of the present year could only be at the cost of eligible candidates of the next year who are not before the Court. We are, therefore, of the view that no relief should be afforded to the appellant-writ petitioner at this juncture. Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, is dismissed, however, without any orders as to costs.

(RANJAN GOGOI)
CHIEF JUSTICE

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE

Aditya Sood versus Government Medical College Amritsar



Gulbir Kaur versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, SECTOR-17-C,CHANDIGARH.

Ms. Gulbir Kaur,
House No. 2265, Sector 64 (Phase-x),
SAS Nagar. Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal, Government Medical
College, Patiala. Respondent

CC No. 3713 /2010

Present: None is present on behalf of complainant.
Dr. Harinder Singh, on behalf of respondent.

ORDER

1. The respondent states that the requisite information has been supplied to the complainant vide letter No. RTI/Pharma/ 28, dated 24.01.2011 a copy of which is taken on case file. A telephonic message is received from the complainant that she has received the information and pleads that the case may be closed.

2. Since the information stands supplied, the case is closed and disposed of.

3.. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh Surinder Singh
Dated:25-01-2011 State Information Commissioner

Aditya Sood versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(98154-57496)
Sh. Aditya Sood,
House No. 161, Ward No. 10,
Lakkar Mandi,
Doraha,
Distt. Ludhiana - 141421. ---------Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar --------Respondent CC- 3308/10
Order

Present: Complainant Dr. Aditya Sood in person.
None for the respondent.

In the earlier hearing, the two different applications both dated 24.09.2010 submitted by the complainant had been put together in one case. One of the applications pertained to Govt. Medical College, Amritsar while the other was concerning office of Labour Commissioner, Chandigarh. The same are now converted into two separate cases as under: -

Case No. Title
1 CC 3308/10 Dr. Aditya Sood vs. PIO office of Principal, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar.
2 CC 3308-A/10 Dr. Aditya Sood vs. PIO office of Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh.

Accordingly, in CC 3308/10, the complainant had sought the following information: -

“a) Progress of my case vide Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court orders dated 16.03.2010 in CWP No. 13979/2008;
b) Vide my regd. A.D. letter dated 03.05.2010 to you;
c) My RTI CC No. 176 of 2008;
d) Have you sent my service book to SMO PHC Payal as directed by A.G. Office Chandigarh letter dated 03.09.2010?”

The complaint with the Commission has been filed on 25.10.2010.

On 29.11.2010, directions were given are given to provide complete information to the complainant. Dr. Surinder Pal, PIO office of Principal, Medical College, Amritsar was also directed to appear in today’s hearing personally.

Today none is present on behalf of the respondent nor has any information been provided. However, Dr. Sood states that he has received a cheque for Rs. 31,152/- and that only two treasury vouchers for Rs. 1,714/- and Rs. 506/- are still outstanding.

Dr. Surinder Pal, PIO office of Principal, Medical College, Amritsar is once again directed to appear personally in the next hearing. Pending Information should also be provided.

For further proceedings, to come up on 07.02.2011 at 12.00 Noon in the Chamber.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 28.12.2010 State Information Commissioner

Bhagwan Singh Talwar versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(092137-70996)
Sh. Bhagwan Singh Talwar,
R/o Talwar Cottage,
A-2-24, Krishan Nagar,
East Delhi – 110051 -Appellant

Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Govt. Medical College,
(Vidya Sagar Mental Hospital),
Circular Road, Amritsar – 143001.

2. Public Information Officer,
First Appellate Authority,
O/o Principal,
Govt. Medical College
(Vidya Sagar Mental Hospital)
Circular Road, Amritsar – 143001 -Respondents

AC- 905-2010

Order

Present: None for the appellant.
For the respondent: Dr. Manjit Singh, MO, Mental Hospital, Amritsar (81461-60033)

A letter dated 16.12.2010 addressed to the appellant has been submitted by the respondent present, wherein it is stated:

“Reference notice of hearing received vide your no. PSIC/Legal/RS/AC- 950/2010/12474 dated 04.11.2010, this is to bring to your kind notice that there are three separate institutions at Amritsar as described below:-
1. Nursing College, Amritsar
2. Government Medical College, Amritsar
3. Dr. Vidya Sagar Government Mental Hospital, Amritsar

The college of Nursing is situated within the campus of Government Medical College, Amritsar. But Dr. Vidya Sagar Government Mental Hospital, Amritsar is a separate institution. It has no links/connections with the Government Medical College, Amritsar or with college of Nursing Amritsar.

The letter dated 02.04.2010 written by the petitioner (enclosed alongwith complaint) was addressed to Mrs. Raj Rani, Principal (Nursing College) Government Medical College, Amritsar Punjab vide which the petitioner had sought the information about his treatment. The postal order No. 77E 334413 dated 12.10.2010 (enclosed alongwith complaint) was also payable in the name of Government Medical College, Amritsar. Therefore Dr. Vidya Sagar Government Mental Hospital Amritsar had nothing to do with this application.

The receipt issued by the Parkash Air freight Pvt. Ltd., (enclosed alongwith complaint) also shows the name of the addressee/consignee as Raj Rani, Principal Government Medical College, Amritsar. The letter no. AIFFS/2010/295 dated 19.05.2010 is also addressed to the Appellate Authority and Principal Government Medical College (Vidya Sagar Mental Hospital), Circular Road, Amritsar-143001 (Punjab). The receipt issued by Blaze Flash Courier Pvt., Ltd. (enclosed alongwith complaint) also shows the name of addressee/consignee as Dr. S.S. Shergill, Amritsar, Punjab who is the Principal of Government Medical College, Amritsar.
However I have scrutinized the available record of Mental Hospital, Amritsar for the Month of November 1975 and as per record Sh. Bhagwan Singh Talwar was not admitted in Mental Hospital, Amritsar.
There is a separate department of Psychiatry in the hospital attached to the Government Medical College, Amritsar where treatment of mentally ill patients alongwith facility of electric shock is also available. The applicant might have been treated in that Department and that is why he has addressed all that above mentioned letters to the Principal Government Medical College, Amritsar.
It is prayed and submitted that there is no intention on the part of staff of Dr. Vidya Sagar Government Mental Hospital, Amritsar to refuse to provide information. The applicant seems to have been writing letters at wrong addresses.
It is therefore requested that the complaint may kindly be dismissed.”
Respondent present has submitted a letter dated 16.11.2010 wherein it is stated:
“Reference complaint mentioned above, it is to bring to your kind notice that a reply to the notice issued vide your office letter no. PSIC/Legal/RS/AC-905/2010/12474 dated 04.11.2010 was sent vide this office letter no. PIO/2010/54 dated 16.11.2010 as per Speed Post. The record pertaining to admission of mentally ill patients of Mental Hospital, Amritsar for the whole year of 1975 has been scrutinized and no entry with respect to admission of Sh. Bhagwan Singh Talwar has been found in the Register. Dr. Manjit Singh, Public information Officer of this hospital is being deputed to attend the hearing on 23.12.2010 in the office of State Information Commission, Punjab, SCO no. 32-33-34, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. The photocopy of the reply submitted vide this office letter no. PIO/2010/54 dated 16.11.2010 is also being sent herewith. It is prayed that the complaint my kindly be dismissed and filed.”

Appellant is advised to take up the matter with the appropriate authority for getting the information being sought.

Seeing the merits, the case is hereby closed and disposed of.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.


Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 23.12.2010 State Information Commissioner

Parbodh Chander Bali versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh Parbodh Chander Bali,
16, Shiv Magar, Batala Road,
Amritsar --------------------------Appellant
Vs.
(i) Public Information Officer
O/o The Superintending,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar.
(2) First Appellate Authority,
O/o Principal,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar.
-------------------------Respondent
AC No. 514 of 2010
Order
The judgment in this case was reserved vide my order dated 16.11.10.

2. Appellant sought information from the PIO, O/o The Principal Govt. Medical College, Amritsar. Respondent provided information vide registered letter dated 02.07.2010. Appellant alleged that the letter was passed on 09.07.2010 and Respondent intentionally delayed the information. Appellant also submitted that he sought information from Medical College whereas information was provided by the Medical Suptd. Respondent should explain the reason for this.
3. Respondent was directed to show cause for delay in providing the information and in response to the order showing cause Medical Suptd. Dr. R.P.S. Boparari, Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar filed reply as under:
(i) That the applicant had applied to obtain the information in the office of the Public Information Officer, Govt. Medical College , Amritsar on 15.03.2010. The PIO requested the Professor and Head of Children Ward for supplying the information but the Professor & Head, Department of children Ward brought to the notice of PIO on 30.03.2010 that the information sought is with Medical Superintendent office only. The letter from Public Information Officer to Medical Superintendent to supply information was received in this office on dated 01.04.2010 due to Government Policy as period of one year extension was not accepted (withdrawn by Govt.). No new Superintendent in his place has been appointed till date. The establishment Superintendent was also transferred from Patiala on 17.03.2010, who was neither incharge nor custodian of record and was not in knowledge of information sought. Efforts were made to contact Sh. Harnam Dass retired Superintendent and with his help the record could be traced and the reply with attested photocopies was prepared.

(ii) That on scrutiny of all papers it was found that the reply (information ) had 33 pages but the applicant had deposited only Rs. 10/-. The applicant was informed vide letter no. 4347/Gen. dated 26.04.2010 to deposit balance amount of Rs. 56/- and reminder vide letter no. 5076/Gen. dated 26.04.2010 and letter no. 6656/Gen dated 07.06.2010 but the applicant did not deposit the required amount and hence the delay in providing the information.

(iii) That as for contention of appellant that the record was supplied by Medical Superintendent itself and not by information officer, it is submitted that the information was supplied directly in order to expedite the matter and to avoid further delay. That there is no intentional delay n or any malice while supplying the information but it was due to above mentioned reasons.

4. Appellant had submitted that Respondent had never demanded RTI fee and letters sent by him to deposit the fee had not been received by him.

5. To verify the facts regarding dispatch of letters to deposit the RTI fee, Dispatch Register of the office was called for and it was found that there was cutting in the dispatch register for which PIO was directed to conduct an enquiry. The dispatch clerk was also asked to file his affidavit regarding cuttings in the register.

6. In response to the order, PIO conducted an enquiry and submitted that there has not been any intentional or malafide objective in the dispatch of three letters and the dispatch numbers are in order. Little bit of overwriting appears to be un–intentional. Smt. Amarjit Kaur, dispatch clerk has filed her affidavit as directed and had admitted that cutting is due to rush of work while performing her duties.

7. Dr. Surinder Paul Singh, PIO-cum- Medical Officer appeared personally in the hearing on 16th Nov. 2010 and explained the reason for delay. Keeping in view the statement of PIO and affidavit filed by Dr. RPS Bopari , the show cause notice is hereby withdrawn. However, the PIO is cautioned to be careful in future while dealing with the RTI applications. As the information stands already provided no further cause of action is left the case is therefore disposed of and closed. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner

Gurinder Singh Sodhi versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Gurinder Singh Sodhi
101-Green Field,
Majitha Road
Gali State Bank of India,
Amritsar- 143001 …..Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar …Respondent

CC- 3027/2010
Order

Present:
None for the complainant.
For the respondent: Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Chief Pharmacist (99880-09070)

Respondent states that the relevant information has been sent to the complainant vide registered letter dated 12.11.2010 as directed by the Hon’ble Commission.

Complainant is not present nor have any objections been provided to the information provided. Therefore, it appears he is satisfied.

Accordingly, the case is hereby closed and disposed of.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 15.12.2010 State Information Commissioner

Lakha Singh Azad versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Lakha Singh Azad,
s/o Sh. Mangal Singh,
VPO Rayya Khurd,
Ward No. 10,
Tehsil Baba Bakala,
Distt. Amritsar …..Complainant

Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar …..Respondent
CC- 3349/2010
Order

Present:
None for the complainant.
For the respondent: Dr. Surinder Pal, PIO (97806-62133)

Vide his letter dated 12.08.2010, complainant sought the following information from the respondent: -

“Photocopy of the treatment (MLC) (Bed head ticket), investigations, file noting and family history of Navneet Kaur w/o Kirpal Singh who was admitted in SGTB Hospital on 17.06.2009. Photocopy of the admission slip is attached.

Attested photocopy of the investigation (post mortem) report conducted on the foetus of Navneet Kaur on 22.06.2009. Cause of death of the child be also informed.”

Complainant also sent a reminder on 20.09.2010.

When no response was received, the present complaint has been filed vide letter dated 28.10.2010, received in the Commission on 02.11.2010.

Complainant rang up the office this morning expressing his inability to attend the hearing today.

Dr. Surinder Pal submitted as under:

“As per section 8(h) (Information is being denied as it is private information and can be supplied with the consent of the patient or the court.”

Dr. Surinder Pal also stated that the application of the complainant dated 12.08.2010 was received in their office on 18.08.2010 and on 03.09.2010, the complainant was informed over the telephone to collect the information personally or by sending a self addressed stamped envelope. On receipt of the envelope, the information was sent on 26.11.2010.

I am of the view that the information sought concerns third party and is private and personal in nature. No public interest is involved in providing the same. Therefore, the same cannot be provided.

Accordingly, the case is hereby closed and disposed of.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 01.12.2010 State Information Commissioner

Aditya Sood versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(98154-57496)
Sh. Aditya Sood,
House No. 161, Ward No. 10,
Lakkar Mandi,
Doraha,
Distt. Ludhiana -141421. ----------Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar --------Respondent CC- 3308/10
Order

Present: Complainant Dr. Aditya K. Sood in person.
Sh. Surinder Singh, APIO (98883-90715) o/o Govt. Medical College, Amritsar.
Ms. Manjit Kaur, Labour Inspector from the office of A.L.C. Ludhiana (94636-40731)

Vide request dated 24.09.2010, complainant sought the following information: -

a) Progress of my case vide Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court orders dated 16.08.2010 in CWP No. 13979/2008;

b) Vide my regd. A.D. letter dated 03.05.2010 to you;

c) My RTI CC No. 176 of 2008;

d) Have you sent my service book to SMO PHC Payal as directed by A.G. Office Chandigarh letter dated 03.09.2010?

The instant complaint with the Commission has been filed on 25.10.2010.

Respondent present states that sanction for an amount of Rs. 31,000/- has been being payment of un-availed leave of the complainant. However, no details of the sanction have been provided. Therefore, directions are given to provide complete details to the complainant so that it could be seen if complete information has been provided on all his queries till date.

In the next hearing, Dr. Surinder Pal, PIO office of Principal, Medical College, Amritsar to appear personally.

A letter dated 26.11.2010 has been received from the office of ALC Ludhiana which states:

It is submitted that particulars sought by the applicant are under consideration of the LC Samrala and both the parties were directed to submit their documents on 26.11.2010 and the case is now fixed for 17.12.2010.

Complainant Dr. A.K. Sood presents copy of a judgment of the Labour Court and states he is seeking compliance of the same. Ms. Manjit Kaur states that they have already taken it up and the next date fixed in the case is 17.12.2010.

Respondent has been directed to expedite the implementation of the order of LC Ludhiana which is now scheduled for 17.12.2010.

For further proceedings, to come up on 29.12.2010 at 12.00 Noon in the Chamber.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 29.11.2010 State Information Commissioner

Bhagwan Singh Talwar versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(092137-70996)
Sh. Bhagwan Singh Talwar,
R/o Talwar Cottage,
A-2/24, Krishan Nagar,
East Delhi - 110051 --------Appellant
Vs
1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Govt. Medical College,
(Vidya Sagar Mental Hospital),
Circular Road, Amritsar – 143001.
2. Public Information Officer,
First Appellate Authority,
O/o Principal,
Govt. Medical College
(Vidya Sagar Mental Hospital)
Circular Road, Amritsar – 143001 ------------Respondents

AC- 905/2010
Order

Present: Appellant Sh. Bhagwan Singh Talwar in person.
None for the respondent.

Vide letter dated 28.07.2010, complainant requested as under: -

A certificate to the effect that I was admitted in the Mental Hospital at Amritsar some time in the first week of November, 1975 and was under treatment for about a month there in the said hospital, certifying the period of treatment.

The instant complaint has been filed vide letter dated 18.10.2010 (received in the office on 21.10.2010) when no response was received.

Appellant present states that he spoke to the Director Dr. Goyal over the telephone who informed him that no such records are available with them.

One more opportunity is granted to the respondent to provide complete and relevant information to the appellant in a fortnight, under intimation to the Commission. PIO, office of Govt. Medical College Hospital, Amritsar is directed to appear in person in the next hearing and give it in writing if no such records are available with them.

Appellant has also submitted:

“With reference to case no. 905, Sh. Goyal of Vidya Sagar Mental Hospital, Amritsar rang me up in Delhi to say that they do not have any record of the treatment I took in the said hospital on 06.11.1975 onwards for a high degree of depression. I told him to trace the records as I have to submit it to the Hon’ble Court.

For further proceedings, to come up on 23.12.2010 at 12.00 Noon in the Chamber.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.


Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 25.11.2010 State Information Commissioner

Parbodh Chander Bali versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh Parbodh Chander Bali,
16, Shiv Magar, Batala Road,
Amritsar.
--------------------Appellant
Vs.
(i) Public Information Officer
O/o The Superintending,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar.
(2) First Appellate Authority,
O/o Principal,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar.
----------------------------Respondent


AC No. 514 of 2010

Present: (i) None is present on behalf of the Appellant
(ii) Dr. Suriner Paul, PIO-cum – Medical Officer and Sh. Inderpal , Clerk on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard
2. As desired in the hearing dated 12th October 2010, Respondent has submitted the enquiry report and affidavit of the dispatch clerk, which is taken on record. Judgment is reserved.
3.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 16th November, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Gurinder Singh Sodhi versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Gurinder Singh Sodhi
101-Green Field,
Majitha Road
Gali State Bank of India,
Amritsar- 143001 …..Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar …Respondent

CC- 3027/2010
Order

Present:
None for the complainant.
For the respondent: Sh. Surinder Singh, APIO (98883-90715)

Vide letter dated 28.05.2010, complainant sought the following information: -

“1. No. of OPD patients who visited Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital / Guru Nanak Dev Hospital during last seven years;
2. Value of the medicines purchased for the said OPD patients during 7 years; year-wise details be provided.
3. The amount collected from OPD patients during last seven years on account of tickets / cards.
4. Year-wise details purchased during the said period;
5. The budget allocation for Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital / Guru Nanak Dev Hospital by the State. What was the amount spent on the OPD patients; medicines purchased and what was the unutilized budge amount?”

The instant complaint has been filed vide letter dated 15.09.2010.

Respondent presents a letter dated 09.11.2010 whereby the complainant has been asked to deposit the requisite fee for getting the information. I have informed the respondent that since the fee has been demanded beyond the stipulated time limit of 30 days as per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act 2005, therefore, the information has to be supplied free of any charges. Section 7(6) reads as under: -

“7(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1).”

Respondent assures the Commission that the directions will be complied with.

For further proceedings, to come up on 15.12.2010 at 12.00 Noon in the Chamber.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.




Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 11.11.2010 State Information Commissioner

Jagdish Gargi versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

Dr. Jagdish Gargi,
B-185, New Amritsar
Amritsar …..Complainant

Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar. …..Respondent

CC- 3009/2010
Order

Present:
None for the complainant.
For the respondent: Sh. Surinder Singh, APIO (98883-90715)

Vide letter dated 30.07.2010, complainant sought the following information from the respondent office: -

“1. From 01.05.2010 to 30.07.2010, how many Boards were constituted by the Principal, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar for medico-legal cases?
2. At the instance of which Judicial Authority / Investigation Officer / Civil Surgeon, the said Boards were constituted from 01.05.2010 to 30.07.2010? Copies be provided.
3. A copy of the initial MLR conducted.
4. Name and address of the Board. If he happens to be from the Forensic Department, is he on duty or on leave? Summer vacations roster of the doctors of the department.
5. How many officers superior to Chairman are posted in the said department? How many of them are on duty?
6. Copy of applications consequent upon which the Medico-legal Boards were constituted.
7. If the Boards were constituted on some other authority, a copy of the rules be provided.”

However, the instant complaint has been filed vide letter dated 22.09.2010 (received in the Commission on 06.10.2010).

Respondent states that complete information has been sent to the complainant on 20.10.2010 by registered post and submits a copy of the same.

Complainant is not present nor have any objections been pointed out to the information provided. It seems he is satisfied.

Seeing the merits of the case, therefore, it is hereby closed and disposed of.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.



Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 10.11.2010 State Information Commissioner

Prabodh Bali versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(79170 10035)
Sh. Prabodh Bali,
16, Shiv Nagar,
Batala Road,
Amritsar 143001 -------Complainant

Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Shri Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital,
Amritsar ----------Respondent
CC- 2657/2010
Order

Present: Sh. S.M. Bhanot for the complainant (98888-10811)
For the respondent: Dr. Surinder Pal, PIO (97806-62133)

Sh. S.M. Bhanot is present on behalf of the complainant. He states that complete information to his satisfaction has been provided on 23.09.2010. This is contrary to what has been recorded in the order dated 23.09.2010 that information has been provided and the complainant needs time to study the same.

Reply to the show cause notice issued on 13.10.2010 has also been submitted and I am satisfied that there was no malafide on the part of the respondent for the delay in supplying the information.

Regarding receipt of original application of the complainant in the office of respondent, Dr. Surinder Pal states that they have already commenced an enquiry into the matter and the outcome of the same will be communicated to the Commission as well as to the complainant. Dr. Pal also submitted as under: -

1. It is submitted that letter of complainant (RTI Application) dated 11.07.2010 was addressed to PIO SGTB Hospital, Amritsar and same was not received by the PIO o/o Principal, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar because of different establishments under the same PIO.

2. The PIO came to know about this case along with the notice from the Commission no. 10276 dated 31.08.2010 which was again addressed to PIO SGTB Hospital, Amritsar and same was forwarded to PIO o/o Principal, Govt. Medical College by Medical Supdt. vide letter dated 14.09.2010.

3. Information was given to Mr. P.C. Bali in the Commission on 23.09.2010 by Dr. Surinder Pal, PIO and Dr. R.P.S. Boparai.

4. Therefore, there is no deliberate delay on the part of PIO. However, matter of non-receipt of the RTI application has been taken up with the post office to know the fact of delivery of post. Further action if any will be taken after the reply from post office and the Commission and the Complainant will be informed accordingly in due course of time.

Seeing the merits of the case, it is hereby closed and disposed of.

Copies of order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh Mrs. Ravi Singh
Dated: 01.11.2010 State Information Commissioner

NEETU SAINI Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19481 OF 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 29, 2010

Neetu Saini
.....Petitioner
VERSUS

State of Punjab and others
....Respondents

CORAM:- HONBLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. B. D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner appeared in the P.M.E.T. 2010 Examination for admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S Courses. The examinations was held on the basis of prospectus issued by respondent No.2. The petitioner secured 462 marks and was placed at merit No.265. The petitioner claims that she was sure to get admission at Government Medical College, Amritsar. The schedule for counselling for admission to various Medical Colleges was issued in July 2010. While the process was on, respondent No.2 issued a notice on 2.8.2010, permitting the physically handicapped category candidates to apply fresh even if they had not fulfilled the eligibility condition of not less than securing 50% marks in the qualifying examination. As per the notice, eligibility condition for cut off marks in he qualifying examination was relaxed from 50% to 45%. Due to the relaxed eligibility condition, respondent No.4, who had secured 46% marks in the qualifying examination, thus, was held eligible for dmission and accordingly was admitted in Medical College, Amritsar ecause of this changed condition. This led to affecting the rights of he petitioner to get admission at Medical College, Amritsar, and ence, the etitioner has filed the present petition to challenge the relaxation done after having invited the applications, terming it to be llegal, arbitrary and unfair.

The primary objection of the petitioner appears to be that he condition could not have been relaxed midway during the counselling and that too after issuance of the prospectus, on the basis of which the tests were held.

The petitioner has been admitted to Shri Guru Ram Dass Institute, Amritsar but still has come up with the grievance only to say that her chance to get admission in Medical College, Amritsar, has been put to prejudice. The petitioner has not demonstrated in any manner as to how the relaxation in the cut off marks for considering the eligibility for physically handicapped candidates has effected the chances of the petitioner to get admission in the Medical College, Amritsar. The reservation for the physically handicapped candidates is required to be made as per the statute and as such, can not be termed as illegal or arbitrary. In order to achieve this statutory purpose, if some relaxation is granted to make some physically handicapped candidates eligible, it would not lead to any arbitrary, discriminatory or unfair action. Respondent No.4 has been admitted to a medical course and this relaxation appears to have been made to achieve the statutory object of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The requirement of statute can not be allowed to become redundant by providing same standard of eligibility for a physically handicapped candidate, who would definitely be at disadvantage as compared to those candidates who does not suffer such handicap. I can not notice any illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the respondents in relaxing the eligibility condition, since it was with the aim and purpose of achieving the purpose behind the abovesaid Act. It may also need a notice that any interference in this would lead to ousting the physically handicapped candidates, who have been admitted due to the relaxed eligibility condition, which rather may not sound fair. Incidentally, the petitioner is only seeking a change of his College for the purpose of admission.Accordingly, I do not consider this case to be fit for invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

(RANJIT SINGH)
JUDGE

Parbodh Chander Bali versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh Parbodh Chander Bali,
16, Shiv Magar, Batala Road,
Amritsar.

…………………………….Appellant
Vs.

(i) Public Information Officer
O/o The Superintending,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar.

(2) First Appellate Authority,
O/o Principal,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar.
………………………………..Respondent

AC No. 514 of 2010

Present:
(i) Sh. S.M.Bhanot, the Appellant
(ii) Sh. Inderpal , Clerk on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. In order to verify the dispatch of letters dated 12.04.2010, 26.04.2010 and 07.06.2010, Respondent was directed to bring dispatch register. Today, Respondent has brought the dispatch register which clearly shows that the entries has been made at alater date.

2. In view of the above, PIO is directed to conduct an enquiry in this regard and should submit written reply on the next date of hearing. In addition to the written reply, the PIO/ MS is also hereby given an opportunity for a personal hearing. He may take note that in case he does not file written reply and does not avail himself of the opportunity of personal hearing , Commission shall proceed to take further action against him exparte. The concerned clerk who is incharge of dispatch register is also directed to file an affidavit as to why action should not be taken against him/her for tempering with the official documents. He/ She should file an affidavit in this regard on the next date of hearing failing which action under Section 20 of RTI Act will be initiated.

3. Adjourned to 16.11.10 (10.30 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-

(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 12th October, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Parbodh Chander Bali versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh Parbodh Chander Bali,
16, Shiv Magar, Batala Road,
Amritsar.
…………………………….Appellant
Vs.

(i) Public Information Officer
O/o The Superintending,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar.

(2) First Appellate Authority,
O/o Principal,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar.
………………………………..Respondent
AC No. 514 of 2010
Present: (i) Sh. Surinder Mohan Bhanot on behalf of the Appellant
(ii) Dr. Rajinder Pal, PIO and Sh. Surinder Singh, Sr. Assistant on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

Heard

2. Appellant has authorized Sh. Surinder Mohan Bhanot to appear on his behalf for today’s hearing. In response to the order showing cause, Respondent has filed an affidavit on behalf of the Medical Superintendent, Amritsar. As directed during the hearing dated 30.07.2010, information on the three points is provided to the Complainant, today in the Commission. After going through the information, Appellant has informed that information supplied is still incomplete. He has not been provided photocopies of the back side of the one agreement and in another agreement one page is missing. Respondent is directed to send this information to the Appellant by registered post within one week.

3. Adjourned to 10.09.10 (10.30 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 20th August, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Parbodh Chander Bali versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh Parbodh Chander Bali,
16, Shiv Magar, Batala Road,
Amritsar.
…………………………….Appellant
Vs.

(i) Public Information Officer
O/o The Superintending,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar.
(2) First Appellate Authority,
O/o Principal,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar.
………………………………..Respondent
AC No. 514 of 2010
Present: (i) Sh. Parbodh Chander Bali, the Appellant
(ii) Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Pharmacist on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

Heard

2. Dr. D.S.Bhoparai appeared personally and states that he will file reply to the order showing cause on the next date of hearing as he is on leave. Appellant states that he has pointed out the following deficiencies.

(1) Legible copies of the challan form.
(2) Photocopies of the back side of Stamp Paper
(3) Letter No. 917 dated 18.02.2008 as referred in the reply.

3. Appellant further states that he sought information from the PIO, Medical College, Amritsar but information has been provided to him by the Suptd. Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar. Appellant wants to know in what capacity i.e PIO/APIO Suptd. Medical College, Amritsar has provided the information. Last opportunity is given to the PIO to file his written reply in response to the order showing cause failing which action under Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005 will be initiated.

4. Adjourned to 20.08.2010 (10.30 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties. Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 30th July, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Mohan Sharma Tiwari versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Sh. Mohan Sharma Tiwari,
President,
Global Human Rights Council
(RSC) Sub Office and
Gurbax Colony, Patiala. --------Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal Govt. Medical College,
And Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. -------Respondent


CC No.1832 of 2010

ORDER

Present: - Shri Mohan Sharma Tiwari Complainant in person.
Dr.Harinder Singh, PIO-cum-Prof. and Shri Gian Chand,APIO-cum- Senior Assistant, on behalf of Respondent.

Shri Mohan Sharma Tiwari filed application with the PIO, O/o the Govt. Medical College & Rajindra Hospital, Patiala on 19.4.2010 and filed complaint with the Commission with respect to his RTI application on 28.5.2010 with the grievance that no information has been provided to him till date. The parties had due and adequate notice of hearing to be held today through registered post on 7.6.2010.

2. Both the parties are present today. Respondent submitted that information has been provided to the Complainant. During the course of arguments, from the perusal of the documents and submission made by the parties, it emerges that Complainant’s grievance is that action has not been taken by the Department as per the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ‘Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana. Respondent stated that as per the points No.1, 2 and 4, certified copies of the documents have been supplied to the Complainant except point No.(v) of Demand (1). In response to this, Respondent submitted that he may file fresh application with respect to point No.1 (v) and needful will be done.
3. So far as the information is concerned, the same stands supplied to the complainant. Strictly as per the RTI Act, 2005, no cause of further action is left regarding implementation of the decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Complainant may approach the Civil Court or the competent authority.

4. Accordingly, the case is hereby closed and disposed of.

5. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh (Mrs. Jaspal Kaur) Dated: 21.07.2010 State Information Commissioner.

Parbodh Chander Bali versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh Parbodh Chander Bali,
16, Shiv Magar, Batala Road,
Amritsar.

…………………………….Appellant

Vs.

(i) Public Information Officer
O/o The Superintending,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar.
(2) First Appellate Authority,
O/o Principal,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar.

………………………………..Respondent
AC No. 514 of 2010

Present:
(i) Sh. Parbodh Chander Bali, the Appellant
(ii) Sh, Rajesh Gupta, Pharmacist on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Appellant states that he sought information from the PIO vide his letter dated 11.03.2010, on not receiving any information, he filed appeal with the first appellate authority vide his letter dated 21.04.2010. On not received information, he filed appeal with the Commission on 11.06.2010.

3. In today’s hearing, Appellant states that he has been provided information by the PIO vide their registered letter dated 02.07.2010 but actually posted on 09.07.2010. PIO has deliberately delayed the information, action should be taken against the PIO for not providing the information in time as prescribed under the RTI Act 2005. He should also be compensated for the financial loss suffered by him in attending hearing in the Commission. Appellant has also pointed out deficiencies in the information provided to the Respondent today in the Commission.

4. It is observed that PIO has not provided the information within time as prescribed under the RTI Act 2005. Appellant has also suffered financial loss in attending the hearing in the Commission.

5. In view of the above, Respondent is directed to show cause as to why:-
(i) Why supply of information as per RTI request sent to him has been delayed.

(ii) Why penalty be not imposed upon him for not supplying the information within time as prescribed under RTI Act 2005.

(iii) Why Complainant should not be compensated for the harassment and financial loss suffered by him in getting the information.

6. PIO is directed to provide information regarding deficiencies pointed by the Appellant before the next date of hearing. He is also directed to file an affidavit in response to the order showing cause on the next date of hearing.

7. Adjourned to 30.07.10 (10.30 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 13th July, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Pritpal Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Pritpal Singh,
S/o Sh. Manohar Singh,
4464, Ranjit Pura,
Near Khalsa College,
Amritsar.
……………………………. Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal Sahib,
Medical College,
Amritsar.

………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1416 of 2010

Present:
(i) Sh. Pritpal Singh, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Hardeep S. Bubber, Pharmacist on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard
2. The sought for information, as available in the record, has been provided to the Complainant. No further action is required.

3. The case is, therefore, disposed of and closed. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 8th July, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Pritpal Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Pritpal Singh,
S/o Sh. Manohar Singh,
4464, Ranjit Pura,
Near Khalsa College,
Amritsar.

……………………………. Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal Sahib,
Medical College,
Amritsar.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1416 of 2010

Present:
(i) Sh. Pritpal Singh, the Complainant
(ii) Sh Hardeep S. Bubber, Pharmacist on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Complainant states that no information has been given to him so far in respect to his application for information dated 17.01.10. He further states that during the last hearing, some of the information was provided which relates to another application. He has already pointed out deficiencies vide his letter dated 23.05.10. In today’s hearing, Respondent states that he has already provided information with respect to the application of the Complainant available in his office. Another copy of the application for information is given to the Complainant today in the Commission. Respondent is directed to ensure that sought for information is provided to the Complainant within one week failing which action under Section 20 of the RTI Act will be initiated.

3. Adjourned to 08.07.2010 (10.30 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties

(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 17th June, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Pritpal Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Pritpal Singh,
S/o Sh. Manohar Singh,
4464, Ranjit Pura,
Near Khalsa College,
Amritsar.
……………………………. Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal Sahib,
Medical College,
Amritsar.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1416 of 2010

Present:
(i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Hardeep S. Bubber, Pharmacist, O/o Medical Suptd., Amritsar

ORDER

Heard
2. Respondent has brought information to personally deliver it to the Complainant today in the Commission. Complainant is absent. Respondent is advised to send the information to the Complainant by speed post. Complainant is advised to point out the deficiencies, if any, in the information provided to the Respondent within one week after receiving the information.
3. Adjourned to 17.06.10 (at 10.30 ) for confirmation of compliance. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 18th May, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Note: After the hearing, Complainant appeared and copy of the information is handed over to him.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 18th May, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Jasbir Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Jasbir Singh,
S/o Sh. Sardar Singh,
1155, Katra Baghian,
Amritsar
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3274 of 2009

Present:
(i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Harnam Dass, Suptd. on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that the sought for information has been provided to the Complainant. Complainant is absent. It is presumed that he is satisfied with the information provided. No further action is required.

3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 24th December, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Sh Jasbir Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Jasbir Singh,
S/o Sh. Sardar Singh,
1155, Katra Baghian,
Amritsar
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3274 of 2009

Present:
(i) Sh. Pritpal Singh on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) None is present on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard
2. Complainant has authorized Sh. Pritpal Singh to appear on his behalf. Complainant states that he sought information for 3 items in his application for information dated 29.06.09. Respondent has provided information for item No. 2 & 3. No information has been provided for item No. 1. Respondent is directed to provide information relating to item No.1 with one week from the receipt of this order.

3. Adjourned on 24.12.09 (at 02.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 1st December, 2009 State Information Commissioner

THE PUNJAB STATE THROUGH SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMVsSUDHIR LUTHRA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Misc. No. 9027-C of 2009 and Regular Second Appeal No. 4818 OF 1999

Date of decision: 10th November, 2009

The Punjab State through Secretary, Health and Family Planning Department, Punjab, Chandigarh and another ......Appellants
Versus
Sudhir Luthra .......Respondent

Before:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

Present:
Mr. S.K.Bhanot, Senior DAG, Punjab for the appellants.
Mr. Arun Chandra, Advocate for the respondent.

Rajive Bhalla, J.(Oral)
The appellants challenge judgments and decrees dated 31.05.1997 and 10.08.1999, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samana and the Additional District Judge, Patiala, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing their appeal.

The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction, to direct the appellants to release his salary and his general provident fund along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 1.01.1994. On merits, the respondent pleaded that he joined the P.C.M.S. Cadre on 28.06.1983 and as he subscribed to the general provident fund account, he was allotted account no. P.B.MED/26020.

The respondent was selected for the M.S. Course in Opthalmology at Medical College, Amritsar, in August 1987 and completed the course in December 1989. He was thereafter, posted at Civil Hospital, Ferozepur and then transferred to Shergarh Rural Dispensary. He remained on leave upto 15.10.1991, but could not rejoin service thereafter. As he had furnished a service bond for Rs. 50,000/-, requiring him to serve the appellants, he was asked to pay Rs.50,000/-. The respondent paid Rs.50,000/- to the Tehsildar, Moga, by way of a demand draft drawn in the name of the Director, Health and Family Welfare Department, Punjab, Chandigarh and submitted his resignation. Despite this, an enquiry was initiated for his absence, though, he had resigned. As the appellants have withheld the provident fund amount and should
therefore, be directed to pay this amount to the respondent.

In response, the appellants filed a reply, stating that as the respondent remained absent from duty, without leave, violated the
terms and conditions of his service bond and as departmental proceedings are pending, the provident fund cannot be released to the respondent. It was further averred that resignation has been rejected and therefore, the respondent is still deemed to be in service.

On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction on the grounds mentioned in the plaint?OPP

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of the defendants?OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD.

4. Whether the notice served upon defendants before institution of the suit was legal and valid?OPD

5. Relief.

After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court decreed the suit by holding that the appellants could not retain the amount deposited in the
general provident fund and therefore, directed the appellants to
refund the general provident fund amount and salary due to the
respondent with interest @12% per annum.

Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 10.08.1999, the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court.

Counsel for the appellants submits that as the respondent violated the terms and conditions of his service bond, exploited his employment with the State of Punjab to undergo a M.S.Course, the
courts below could not have directed refund of the provident fund.

Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that whatever, be the nature of the respondents misconduct, the appellants have no right, in law to retain the provident fund, as even otherwise, the respondent has paid the amount under the service bond.

I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and decrees and do not find any reason to hold that the
impugned judgments and decrees in any manner are incorrect or give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law.

Admittedly, the appellants have retained the provident fund payable to the respondent on the plea that he was absent without
leave. The trial court and the first appellate court are concurrent in
their opinion, that the appellants have no right, in law to retain the
provident fund, particularly, when the respondent has already resigned from service, as per letter of resignation Ex.P-8 and the registered cover and posting receipt Ex.P-9. The courts below have also taken note of the fact that the respondent has deposited the bond amount of Rs. 50,000/- In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no substantial question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

[RAJIVE BHALLA]
JUDGE

Dr Avtar Singh Saini versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Dr. Avtar Singh Saini,
House No. 103-A, Gopal Nagar,
St. No. 4, Majitha Road,
Amritsar. …...Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Medical College, Amritsar.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Research & Medical Education,
Sector 34, Chandigarh. ……. Respondents

CC No. 1186 of 2009
ORDER

Present: Complainant, Dr. Avtar Singh Saini, in person.
Dr. K.C. Manchanda, PIO, Medical College, Amritsar & Dr. P.P.S. Coonar, Joint Director, DRME, Chandigarh.

As per order dated 16.10.2009, the PIO, Medical College, Amrtisar, Dr. K.C. Manchanda and PIO of the DRME, Dr. P.P.S. Coonar are present. Dr. Manchanda submits a copy of the Affidavit signed by the Principal, Dr. Karnail Singh, dated 31.10.2009, alongwith the certain annexures, wherein, in para 11, page 3 of the Affidavit, it is mentioned that “That inspite best efforts and thorough search, the copy of the Annual Confidential Reports in question is not being traced out and that is why this office is unable to supply the same to the Complainant”.
In view of the foregoing, the case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Sd/-
Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, November 04, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Avtar Singh Saini versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh
Dr. Avtar Singh Saini, # 103-A, Gopal Nagar, St. No.4, Majitha Road, Amritsar. ---Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer, O/o Medical Superintendent, Medical College, Amritsar.
---Respondent
C.C. No.1973 of 2009 ORDER

Present: -
None on behalf of the Complainant.
Shri Surinder Singh, APIO-cum-Senior Assistant, on behalf of Respondent.

The Complainant filed a complaint on 20.7.2009 that his original application dated 11.6.2009, has not been attended to.

The information sought by him is regarding: “Copy of selection/ appointment of Dr.Paramjit Singh Bedi as Principal (officiating & regular) of Medical College, Amritsar.”

Information has been sent to the Complainant on 5.10.2009.A telephonic call has been received from the Complainant that he was caught up in the jam and has requested to adjourn the case to some other date.

To come up on 23.11.2009 at 12:00 Noon in the Chamber. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh (Mrs. Ravi Singh) Dated: 07.10.2009 State Information Commissioner.

Dr Avtar Singh Saini versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054


Dr. Avtar Singh Saini,
House No. 103-A, Gopal Nagar,
St. No. 4, Majitha Road,
Amritsar 143001. --------Complainant

Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Medical College, Amritsar.

2. Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Research & Medical Education,
Sector 34, Chandigarh. -------Respondents


CC No. 1186 of 2009
ORDER

Present: Dr. Avtar Singh Saini, Complainant, in person.
Mr. Surinder Singh, APIO, for Respondent No.1.
Representative, Mr. Dhiraj, Junior Assistant, for Respondent No.2.
--------


The Complainant vide his original RTI application dated 13.02.2008, addressed to the PIO O-O Principal, Medical College, Amritsar, has demanded copy of the Annual Confidential Report proforma submitted by me vide No.160, dated 25.3.03 & ACR written by Dr. M.S. Khanna, the then Principal, Medi. Coll. Asr.

2. The first hearing in this case was held on 22.06.2009 and again on 17.07.2009. During the hearing on 17.07.2009 the Complainant had stated that the information provided to him by the Directorate of Research and Medical Education vide letter dated 19.06.2009, is not correct. The proforma attached with the letter is the ‘subsequently asked’ proforma and ‘not the original. He also contests the contention that Dr. Khanna did not write any report.

3. The Respondent-PIOs, O-O Principal Medical College and DRME were directed to provide the correct information, as per the initial application of Dr. Saini, duly attested, before the next date of hearing.
4. Today, the representatives of the two Respondents i.e. Medical College, Amritsar and DRME appeared and they were unable to sort out the matter pertaining to the A.C.R. demanded by the Complainant.
5.
To resolve this issue, I direct that both the P.I.Os., Dr. K.C. Manchanda, Government Medical College, Amritsar ( as stated by Mr. Surinder Singh, APIO) and Dr. P.P. Cooner, PIO DRME office (as stated by Mr. Dhiraj) will be personally present at the next date of hearing with the requisite information, duly attested, as per record. In case the requisite information is not on record the PIOs will submit respective affidavits as to who is the actual custodian of the information demanded -copy of the ACR -to resolve the issue.

4. A copy of this order be sent to Secretary, Medical Education and Research, Punjab, who would ensure correct information-document is given to the Complainant and also presence of the two PIOs at the next date of hearing.
5. The case is adjourned to 16.10.2009 (Friday) at 2.00 pm, in court No.01, SCO 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.
Announced in the hearing.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, September 18, 2009. State Information Commissioner.

cc: Mrs. Anjali Bhawra, IAS,
Secretary, Medical Education & Research,
Punjab, Mini Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh

Deepak Berry versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Dr. Deepak Berry,
H.No. 5689, Sector-38 (West),
Chandigarh.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. Principal,
Govt., Medical College,
Amritsar.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1333 of 2009

Present:
(i) Dr. Deepak Berry, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Surinder Singh, Senior Assistant on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

2. Respondent states that sought for information has been provided to the Complainant. Complainant is satisfied with the information provided. No further action is required.

3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 25th August, 09

M-S KULWANT SINGH and COMPANY LTD Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS



Dr Avtar Singh Saini versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Dr. Avtar Singh Saini,
House No. 103-A, Gopal Nagar,
St. No. 4, Majitha Road,
Amritsar 143001. ……Complainant

Vs

1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Medical College, Amritsar.

2. Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Research & Medical Education,
Sector 34, Chandigarh. ..…Respondents

CC No. 1186 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
Complainant, Dr. Avtar Singh Saini, in person and Advocate Mr. H.B.S. Rai.

None for the Respondent.
----

The Complainant says that the information provided to him by the Directorate of Research and Medical Education vide letter dated 19.06.2009, is not correct. The proforma attached with the letter is the “subsequently asked” proforma and not the original. He also contests the contention that Dr. Khanna did not write any report.

2. I direct the Respondent PIO, office of the Principal Medical College as well as PIO, office of DRME, Chandigarh, to provide the correct information, as per the initial application of Dr. Saini, dated 13.02.2008, duly attested, as per record before the next date of hearing. In case, the information is not available on record, both the Respondents will submit Affidavits to that effect.
The case is adjourned to 21.08.2009(Friday) in Court No. 1, SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh at 2.00 PM.
Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, July 17, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Dr Avtar Singh Saini versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Dr. Avtar Singh Saini,
103-A, Gopal Nagar,
St. No. 04, Majitha Road,
Amritsar. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Medical College, Amritsar. ..…Respondent

CC No. 1244 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
None for the Complainant.
APIO, Mr. Surinder Singh, for the Respondent.
----

The Respondent APIO submits in writing that the Complainant has sought same information in CC-1186/2009, which was heard by this Bench on 22.06.2009, when the APIO alongwith the representative of the office of Directorate of Research and Medical Education had appeared after the order had been dictated in the open Court and had submitted a copy of the information demanded by the Complainant. The Respondent was directed to send the demanded information, duly attested, before the next date of hearing i.e. 17.07.2009.

2. Today, the APIO submits that the two cases, CC-1186/2009 and CC-1244/2009 are similar, hence, the instant case CC-1244/2009 be disposed of and closed as the requisite information stands supplied. The Respondent also submitted the related documents. The same is taken on record.

The case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, July 03, 2009 State Information Commissioner

dr Avtar Singh Saini versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Dr. Avtar Singh Saini,
103-A, Gopal Nagar,
St. No. 04, Majitha Road,
Amritsar. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Medical College, Amritsar. ..…Respondent

CC No. 1245 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
None for the Complainant.
APIO, Mr. Surinder Singh, for the Respondent.
----

The Complainant vide his RTI request dated 01.04.2009, has sought information on 02 points. The same was sent to him on 01.06.2009. A copy of which is taken on record. Nothing contrary has been heard from him.

The case is disposed of and closed.

Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, July 03, 2009 State Information Commissioner

dr Singh Saini versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Dr. ` Singh Saini,
# 103-A, Gopal Nagar,
St No. 4, Majitha Road,
Amritsar.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
Medical College,
Amritsar
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1152 of 2009

Present:
Nemo for the parties.

ORDER


Respondent has provided information to the Complainant vide their letter No. 14533/PF dated 01.06.2009. Complainant is absent. It is presumed that he is satisfied with the information provided. No further action is required.

2. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 2nd July, 2009

Dr Deepak Berry versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Dr. Deepak Berry,
H.No. 5689, Sector-38 (West),
Chandigarh.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. Principal,
Govt., Medical College,
Amritsar.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1333 of 2009

Present:
(i) Dr. Deepak Berry, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Surinder Singh, Suptd on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Complainant states that he worked at GMC, Amritsar from 31.07.02 to 30.07.05. He has not been paid four DA installments and one installment of D.P.

3. Respondent states that record being very old is not traceable, efforts are being made to trace the old record. He further states that arrears from 01.04.2004 to 30.06.2004 and 01.01.2005 to 31.03.2005 have been worked out and efforts are being made to draw the arrears from the Treasury. Respondent is directed that sought for information about arrear of DA & DP and voucher No. vide which the arrears were drawn from the Treasury be provided to the Complainant before the next date of hearing.

3. Adjourned to 25.08.09 (11.00 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 1st July, 2009

Dr Avtar Singh Saini versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Dr. Avtar Singh Saini,
House No. 103-A, Gopal Nagar,
St. No. 4, Majitha Road,
Amritsar 143001. ……Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Medical College, Amritsar. ..…Respondent

CC No. 1186 of 2009

ORDER

Present:
Advocate, Mr. Hirday Pal Singh, for the Complainant.
None for the Respondent.
-----
On the behalf of the Complainant his council has appeared who does not carry any authority letter or Vakalatnama. He denies having received any response from the Respondent. A copy of Respondent’s reply is handed over to the Complainant’s representative from the record file. He may submit in writing, if he wishes to, his comments before the next date of hearing.

The case is adjourned to 17.07.2009 (Friday) in Court No. 1, SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh at 2.00 PM.
Announced in the hearing.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, June 22, 2009 State Information Commissioner

P.S. After the order was dictated in the open Court, representatives from the office of Directorate of Research and Medical Education, Punjab, Mr. Dhiraj, Jr. Asstt., and Govt. Medical College, Amrtisar, Mr. Surinder Singh, Sr. Asstt. appeared. They have submitted a copy of the information demanded by the Complainant i.e. a copy of the proforma submitted by Dr. Avtar Singh Saini and ACR recorded by Dr. M.S. Khanna, for the year 2002-03. Both these documents, duly attested, be sent to the Complainant through registered post and a copy of the covering letter be sent to the Commission before the next date of hearing which is 17.07.2009. Copies of the information to be sent to the Complainant are taken on record.

Chandigarh, (P. P. S. Gill)
Dated, June 22, 2009 State Information Commissioner

DR VK KHULLAR AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.848 of 2009

DATE OF DECISION: 25.05.2009

Dr.VK Khullar and others ..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others……….Respondents

CORUM
HON BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

Present:
Mr.RS Ahluwalia,Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab

PERMOD KOHLI,J. (ORAL)
With the consent of counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage.

The petitioners were selected for Post Graduate Course in Medical College, Amritsar. While serving as PCMS doctor, Petitioner No.1 has been selected for Post Graduate Course in Social Preventive whereas petitioner no.2 was selected for M.D. Skin and VD and petitioner no.3 for
MD in anesthesia. However, they were not permitted to join for want of No Objection Certificate from the Government.

The petitioners filed CWP Nos.8564, 8565 and 9817 of 2008 seeking a direction for issuance of No Objection Certificate. Vide interim order dated 20.5.2008, this Court directed the respondents to give provisional No Objection Certificate to the petitioners for joining the Post Gradudate
courses in Medical College, Amritsar. The aforesaid order was followed by order dated 12.8.2008 whereby the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to verify the provisional No Objection Certificate issued to the petitioners within a period of two weeks and the petitioners were permitted to continue with their classes. Since this order was passed by Hon ble Division Bench of this Court, the State has filed Special Leave Petition which is still pending. Order passed by this Court has not been stayed till date.

The petitioners have now filed this petition seeking direction for release of the salary with effect from June 2008.

This petition is opposed by the respondents only on the ground that SLP is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court. Since the petitioners have joined the Post Graduate Courses on their selection and are pursuing the same, their salary cannot be denied to them, notwithstanding the fact that SLP is pending against the order passed by this Court referred to herein-above.

In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the admissible salary to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. However, release of the salary shall remain subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition.

(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE

DR JAGPAL SINGH DALAL Vs STATE OF PUNJAB

CWP No.20258 of 2008

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of decision: 27.04.2009

Dr.Jagpal Singh Dalal ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

Present:
Mr.RK Malik, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Sajjan Singh Malik, Advocate,for the petitoner.
Ms.Reeta Kohli, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the respondent.

PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

The petitioner joined the Government service as Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicines on being selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission, on 14.05.1982.

He was promoted to the post of Professor, Forensic Medicines on regular basis on 21.05.1987. He was confirmed on the said post with effect from 08.11.1989 vide order dated 11.04.1990. At the relevant time, the age of the retirement of the teaching faculty was 58 years. However, vide notification dated 23/24.04.2007, Annexure P-2, the age of retirement of the teaching faculty was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. The relevant notification reads as follows:-

Notification, the 23 rd April, 2007.

No.1/75/2006-2HB-II/1931
The Governor of Punjab is pleaded to enhance the age of superannuation of Medical/ Dental/ Ayurvedic teachers from the existing 58 yeas to 60 years with immediate effect.

Later, the petitioner was appointed as Principal, Government Medical College, Amritsar. It appears that on account of certain allegations, he was suspended on 16.11.2006, but reinstated on 23.03.2007. On his reinstatement, the petitioner was again given the charge of Director, Research and Medical Education during the leave vacancy of Regular Director, Research and Medical Education vide order dated 07.06.2007, Annexure P-5. The petitioner joined the said post on the same date. While
continuing as Director, Research and Medical Education on the leave arrangement, the petitioner has been ordered to be retired on attaining the age of 58 years, by the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Medical Education and Research Department, vide order dated 28.11.2008, Annexure P-10. It is this order which has been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

On consideration of this petition, vide interlocutory order dated 01.12.2008, a Division Bench of this Court, stayed the retirement of the petitioner as Professor. As a consequence of the aforesaid interlocutory order, the petitioner is continuing to serve as Professor.

The main contention of the petitioner is that he being a Professor on substantive basis, cannot be retired at the age of 58 years in view of the government notification dated 23/24.04.2007,Annexure P-2, whereunder the age of the teaching faculty stands enhanced to 60 years with immediate effect i.e. from the date of the issuance of notification.

On being put to notice, a detailed disclaimer has been filed by the respondents. The stand of the respondent, as is evident from the reply, is that the petitioner on being appointed as Director, Research and Medical Education, is not entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of 60 years and he is to retire at the age of 58 years by virtue of the post of Director, Research and Medical Education.

It is argued on behalf of the State that the notification dated 23/24.04.2007 is applicable only to the teaching faculty and the petitioner ceases to be a teacher on his appointment as the Director, Research and Medical Education. He is liable to be retired at the age of 58 years and is not entitled to the benefit of enhanced age as the same is available only to the teaching faculty.

The appointment to various posts in the Research and Medical Education is governed and regulated by the statutory rules, namely, the Punjab Medical Education Service (Class-1) Rules, 1978, hereinafter referred to as 'the rules”). Rule 3 of the Rules, deals with the constitution of service. Rule 5 of the Rules deals with the appointment to service, whereas Rule 9 of the Rules deals with the method of appointment. Rule 9 of the Rules is reproduced below:-

9. Method of appointment:-

(1) Appointment to the posts in the service shall be made in the following
manner:-

(a) In the case of Assistant Professors-

(i) 75 per cent Posts by promotion from amongst the Lecturers and Senior Lecturers
or by transfer of officials already in service of Government;

(ii) 25 per cent Posts by direct appointment.

(b) In the case of Associate Professors:-

(i) all the posts will be filed up by promotion from amongst the Assistant Professors

( c) In the case of Additional Professors;-

(i) 75 per cent posts by promotion from amongst the Associate Professors, or where
Associate Professors are not available, from amongst the Assistant Professors or by
transfer of officials already in the service of the Government of India, or of a State
Government.

(ii) 25 per cent posts by direct recruitment.

(d) In the case of Professors:-

(i) 75 per cent posts by promotion from amongst the Additional Professors, or, where
Additional Professors are not available, from amongst the Associate Professors, or, where Associate Professors are not available, from amongst the Assistant Professors, or by transfer of official already in the Service of the Government of India, or the State
Government;

(ii) 25 per cent posts by direct recruitment
(e) In the case of Principals it will be made by Selection from amongst the Professors.

(f) In the case of Director, Research and Medical Education, Punjab, it will be made by selection from amongst Principals on seniority (as Principal) cum merit basis and
in case no suitable candidate is available amongst the Principals, it shall be made
from amongst the Professors on seniority (as per their inter-se-seniority) cum merit basis.

From the perusal of Rule 9 of the Rules, it appears that the appointment to the service is by direct recruitment as also by promotion from the feeding categories indicated therein. As far the post of Professor is concerned, 75 per cent posts to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Additional Professors, or, where Additional Professors are not available, from amongst the Associate Professors, or, where Associate Professors are not available, from amongst the Assistant Professors, or by transfer of
official already in the Service of the Government of India, or the State Government. In so far as the filling up of the vacancy of Director, Research and Medical Education is concerned, it has to be filled up by selection from amongst Principals on seniority (as Principal) cum merit basis and in case no suitable candidate is available amongst the Principals, from amongst the Professors on seniority (as per their inter-se-seniority)
cum merit basis.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the senior most Professor in the medical education in the State of Punjab. By virtue of his seniority, he was given the charge of the Director, Research and Medical Education as no eligible Principal was available for selection/ appointment as Director, Research and Medical Education. Even none of the parties to this petition have made any claim that any senior Principal is available for
selection/appointment as the Director, Research and Medical Education. As a natural corollary, the benefit falls to the senior-most Professor in the hierarchy of service. The petitioner being senior most in the hierarchy of service was given the charge, though his appointment was only against a leave arrangement. There is nothing on record to show that till date the selection for the post of Director, Research and Medical Education has been made on substantive basis by a competent authority.The contention of Ms. Reeta Kohli, learned additional Advocate General, is that as and when a Professor is appointed as the Director, Research and Medical Education, he looses the benefit of enhancement of age and, thus, can be conveniently retired at the age of 58
years. It is further argued that only the teaching faculty member is entitled to the benefit of enhancement of the age.

This contention is totally fallacious and in contravention of the spirit of Rule 9 (f) of the Rules which, inter-alia, provides that the appointment on the post of Director, Research and Medical Education is to be made from amongst Principals on seniority (as Principal) cum merit basis and in case no suitable candidate is available from amongst the Professors on seniority cum merit basis. The mandate of this rule is that the selection has to be made on the basis of the seniority-cum-merit from the feeding
channels. Even if a Professor has crossed the age of 58 years and the vacancy of the Director, Research and Medical Education becomes available he is entitled to be considered for appointment notwithstanding the fact that he has crossed the age of 58 years. If the contention of the respondent is accepted, then Rule 9 (f) of the Rules looses its sanctity and becomes redundant. For appointment to the post of Director, Research and Medical Education a person/candidate has to be a Principal/Professor.

The benefit of promotion to the post of Director, Research and Medical Education, cannot be to the disadvantage of a candidate in any manner. If this is allowed to happen, no Principal/Professor would opt to join as Director, Research and Medical Education.

To the contrary, Mr.RK Malik, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Raghubir Singh Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1993 (1) Recent Services Judgments, 638, wherein the following observations have been made:-

2. Some of the teachers or Head Master, who had been promoted to the post of
Inspector of Schools or Senior School Inspectors or having allied designations, were not given the benefit of 60 years retirement age and they came to this Court and the earliest case decided by this Court was Civil Writ No.1365 of 1984, Smt.Sheela Puri Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi, decided on 22 nd May, 1985. It was held that
such like incumbents, who are earlier teachers or head master, would also be entitled to the benefit of enhancement in retirement age. The aforesaid judgment of this Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus Sheela Puri, 1989 (1) SCC 227. This Court kept on following the decision of the Sheela Puri's case 9supra) and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi kept on going to the Supreme Court. Another case related to Kumari Kanta Sharma. This Court granted relief in the same terms and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi went to the Supreme Court and in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 13386-87 of 1989, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Versus Kumari Kanta Sharma, decided on 17 th July, 1990, the Supreme Court passed the following order:-

We do not find any ground for reconsideration of the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Smt.Sheela Puri, 1989 (1) SCC (287). The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

3. Following the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that the petitioner is clearly
entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years, with all service benefits. The
petitioner had been wrongly retired at the age of 58 years on 31st August, 1991.

Accordingly, we direct that petitioner be deemed to be in service until he attains the
age of 60 years i.e. till 31 st August, 1993 and would be entitled to all service benefits,
including pay and allowances, which would have admissible to him, if he had not been
wrongly retired at the age of 58 years. The arrears of pay along with interest at the rate
of 12 per cent, from the date it fell due till payment, be paid to the petitioner within one
month from the receipt of this order. Since none has appeared for the respondent, we
would not burden it with costs.

This Court vide its interlocutory order dated 01.12.2008, stayed the retirement of the petitioner as Professor and, thus, by virtue of the notification dated 23/24.04.2007, he is entitled to continue as Professor upto the age of 60 years.

The vacancy of the Director, Research and Medical Education is required to be filled on substantive basis and it has to be filled up in accordance with the mandate of Rule 9 (f) of the Rules. The petitioner was holding the the said post on leave arrangement. The fact remains that the vacancy is required to be filled up on substantive basis in accordance with rules.

In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order dated 28.11.2008, Annexure P-10, retiring the petitioner at the age of 58 years, is hereby quashed and it is directed that the petitioner shall continue as Professor upto the age of 60 years. Since Rule 9 (f) of the Rules provides for selection of the Director, Research and Medical Education, from amongst the Principal/Professors. On account of non-availability of the senior-most Principal, the respondents will make the appointment to the post of Director, Research and Medical Education from amongst the Senior-most Professor, strictly in accordance with the mandate of Rule 9 (f) of the Rules, by selection. All eligible candidates including the petitioner, shall be considered for such appointment, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE

DR GEETWINDER KAUR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB and OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CWP NO.3426 OF 2009

DATE OF DECISION: 4.3.2009

Dr.Geetwinder Kaur ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Others …Respondents

CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

PRESENT:
Mr.Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab

Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion.
On the asking of this Court, Ms.Charu Tuli accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State. With the consent of the counsel, this petition is disposed of at motion stage.

The petitioner is Medical Officer serving as Junior Resident, Department of Opthalmology, Government Medical College, Amritsar. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is entitled to the higher pay scale on completion of four years and 9 years of service which benefit has been denied to her.

The petitioner has also served legal notice (Annexure P-6) which has not been decided till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider the legal notice (Annexure P-6) and take a decision thereon.

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to take a decision on the legal notice (Annexure P-6) within
period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is furnished to the competent authority. If the petitioner is found entitled to any claim, the same be released to her in accordance with law within a period of one month thereafter. Needless to say, in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, it shall be by a reasoned and speaking order.

(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE

Shri Jasbir Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, SECTOR-17-C,CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Jasbir Singh,
S/o Shri Sardar Singh,
# 1155/1, Katra Baghian,
Amritsar. Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal Medical College,
Amritsar. Respondent

CC No.2407/2008

Present:
None is present on behalf of the Complainant.
Shri Surinder Singh,Senior Assistant, on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

1. The Respondent states that the information has been sent to the Complainant vide Endst.No.1485-86, dated 22.10.2008.
2. The Respondent has informed the Commission vide Memo No.3221, dated 29.1.2009 that the information stands supplied to the Complainant and pleads that the case may be disposed of.
3. Since the Complainant is not present for the second time, the case is disposed of. He might be satisfied with the information supplied to him.
4. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh Surinder Singh
Dated: 03.02.2009 State Information Commissioner

Jasbir Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, SECTOR-17-C,CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Jasbir Singh,S/o Shri Sardar Singh,
# 1155/1, Katra Baghian, Amritsar. Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal Medical College,
Amritsar. Respondent

CC No.2407/2008

Present:
None is present on behalf of the Complainant as well as Respondent.

ORDER

1. A telephonic message is received from Shri Ashwani Kumar, Clerk in the morning on 11.12.2008 that the concerned officials are out of station due to meeting and are unable to attend the hearing today, i.e. 11.12.2008 and requested for adjournment of the hearing.
2. As none is present on behalf of both the parties, one more chance is given to them.
3. The case is fixed for further hearing on 03-02-2009.
4. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.


Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh. Surinder Singh
Dated: 11.12. 2008 State Information Commissioner

DR PARDEEP BLAGGAN Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CWP 18168 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB and HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: Oct. 30, 2008

Dr. Pardeep Blaggan .......................................... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ........................Respondents

Coram:
Honble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
Honble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta

Present:
Mr. R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG,Punjab, for the respondents.

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has prayed that directions be issued to the respondents to issue No Objection Certificate so that the petitioner can join as Lecturer in the Specialty of TB and Respiratory diseases in Medical
College, Amritsar.

Mr. Chahal, learned counsel for the State, submits that the No Objection Certificate has been granted subject to the standard conditions.

In view of the statement made by Mr. Chahal, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.

( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA )
JUDGE

( RAJAN GUPTA )
JUDGE

Sh Aditya K Sood versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Aditya K. Sood,
W.No.10, Lakkar Mandi
Timber Market, Doraha
Distt. Moga.
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o The Principal, Govt.
Medical College, Amritsar.
….Respondent

C.C. NO. 176 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
Sh. Aditya K. Sood, Complainant in person.
Sh. Surinder Singh and Rishi Rai on behalf of the Respondent.

In the earlier order, the respondent was directed to provide the information to the complainant within 20 days. Today the respondent presents a letter written by the Principal Medical College to the Director for revalidation amount of payment to Sh. Aditya K.Sood. The letter states that validation should be executed within 6 months. The order is also being sent to the Director for expediting the matter since the complainant has not received his due payment since 1989. The complainant is satisfied, therefore, the case is hereby disposed of.

(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 17.09.2008

Sh Madhur Tayal versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.


Sh. Madhur Tayal,
Deptt. of Forensic Medicine,
Government Medical College,
Patiala (Punjab).
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal Government
Medical College Amritsar (Pb.)

….Respondent

C.C. NO. 2327 of 2008

ORDER

Vide my order dated 14.7.2008, I had directed the Respondent to send the draft of Rs.2000/- (the amount representing the compensation awarded) to the Complainant by registered post. The Respondent agreed to do so.
2. No communication has been received from the Complainant stating that the amount of compensation has not been received by him. It is thus presumed that the compensation awarded has been received by the Complainant. The complaint, therefore, disposed of and closed.




(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 01.09.2008

Sh Aditya K Sood versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Aditya K.Sood,
W.No.10, Lakkar Mandi,
Timber Market, Doraha
Distt. Moga.
.
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o The Principal, Govt.
Medical College, Amritsar.
….Respondent

C.C. NO. 176 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
Sh. Aditya K.Sood, Complainant in person.
Sh. Surender Singh/APIO on behalf of Respondent.

The respondent submits that payment has not been done to the complainant despite Punjab Government and Principal Medical college orders due to oversight of dealing Clerk at that time. The respondent has requested for 20 days time to provide the payment to Dr. Aditya K.Sood, which has been granted. Directions have also been given to the PIO to file a compliance report in the Commission at the next date of hearing to ensure that the directions have been implemented.

The next date of hearing is 17.09.08 at 2:30 PM.
Sd/- (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 11.08.2008

Dr Madhur Tayal versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Dr. Madhur Tayal
Deptt. of Forensic Medicine,
Government Medical College,
Patiala(Punjab)

…..Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal Government
Medical College Amritsar (Pb.).

….Respondent

C.C. NO. 2327 of 2007

ORDER

Present: -
None on behalf of the Complainant.
Sh. Surinder Singh, Sr. Asstt./APIO on behalf of the Respondent.

Vide my order dated 11.06.2008, a compensation of Rs.2000/- was awarded to the complainant under Section 19(8)(b). The respondent states that he has got prepared a demand draft of Rs.2000/- in the name of the complainant towards the compensation amount as ordered by this Commission. The complainant is not present. Let demand draft be sent by the respondent to the petitioner by registered post.
The judgment is reserved.
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 14.07.2008

Aditya K Sood versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Dr. Aditya K. Sood,
W. No. 10, Lakkar Mandi,
Timber Market, Doraha,
Distt. Moga.
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o The Principal,
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar.

….Respondent

C.C. NO. 176 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
Dr. Aditya K. Sood, Complainant in person.
Sh. Surinder Singh, Sr. Astt./APIO on behalf of the Respondent.

Dr. Aditya K. Sood submitted his application on 20.01.08 that his original application dated 20.09.08 has not been attended to.
Information sought by him is “Under what rules and regulations the payment has not been done to me till to date despite Pb. Govt. orders and Principal Medical College Orders.”
Today the respondent submits that one month time is needed to compile the information sought by the complainant. Therefore one month time is granted.
The next date of hearing is 11.08.08 at 2:30 pm.

(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 09.07.2008

Dr Madhur Tayal versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Dr. Madhur Tayal
Deptt. Of Forensic Medicine,
Government Medical College,
Patiala (Punjab).
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Office,
O/o Principal,
Government Medical College,
Amritsar (Punjab).
….Respondent

C.C. NO. 2327 of 2007

ORDER

Present: -
Dr. Madhur Tayal, Complainant in person.
Dr. Gaurav, Nodal Officer and Surender Singh APIO and Pawan Kumar, Cashier, on behalf of the Respondent.
In the last order dated 28.04.2008, the complainant had demanded compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. The respondent was given an opportunity to file an affidavit if he wants to counter demand of compensation. Today an affidavit is presented which explains the refund of the fees to the complainant. But it does not give any explanation of the delay in providing information to the complainant under the stipulated period of one month. Therefore, compensation of Rs. 2000/- is awarded to the complainant under Section 19(8)(b) and it is clarified that amount of compensation is to be paid by the public authority and not the PIO. The amount of compensation is to be paid within 20 days. Adjourned to 14.07.08 for confirmation of compliance.
The next date of hearing is 14.07.2007 at 2:30 p.m. (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 11.06.2008

SURJIT KAUR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR Regular Second Appeal 3501 of 1986

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of decision:9.5.2008.

Surjit Kaur. ...Appellant.
Versus
Punjab State and another. ...Respondents.

Coram:
Honble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri.

Present:
None for the appellant.
Mr. S. S. Sahu, AAG Punjab.

K. C. Puri, J.
Judgment.
This is an appeal directed by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1986 passed by Shri A.B.Singh
Wasu, the then Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide which the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1985 delivered by Shri G.S.Sandhu, the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar was dismissed.

Briefly stated Surjit Kaur plaintiff was employed as Lady Health Visitor in C.H.C. Centre, Hussainpura (Amritsar) and continued to work till 11.9.1972 when she was transferred to Family Planning in Medical College, Amritsar vide order dated 7.7.1972 of Director Health Services. After having been relieved from CMH Centre, Hussainpura
on 11.9.1972, the plaintiff joined her duty at Medical College, Amritsar on 12.10.1972.

Thereafter, she applied for two days casual leave from 14th to 16th of October, 1972. On 18.10.1972, she submitted another application for leave from 18.10.1972 to 17.11.1972. She again submitted another application for leave from 18.11.1972 to 17.12.1972.

None of these leave applications was sanctioned.

Her absence from duty was reported to the Director, Health Services, Punjab who asked the plaintiff to join her duties till 15.4.1973 positively failing which steps will be taken to terminate her services. In spite of that, the plaintiff remained absent. Ultimately, she filed a suit in the Court of Shri Lakhbir Singh, the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar on 23.11.1973. On the statement made in the Court that the plaintiff was still in service, the plaintiff withdrew that suit. On 28.10.1976, Director Health Services issued another letter directing the plaintiff to join her duties at PHC Chakhowal but she did not join her duties. Ultimately, after enquiry, her services were terminated vide order dated 15.6.1979 passed by respondent No.2.

The defendants filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff.

The following issues were framed by the trial Court;-

1. Whether the impugned order dated 15.6.1979 passed by defendant No.2 is wrong, illegal etc. as alleged in the plaint?OPP.

2. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form as alleged in the preliminary objection of the written statement in para Nos.1 and 3 ?OPP.

3. Whether no valid or legal notice U/S 80 CPC was served on the defendants before filing the present suit?

4. Relief.

The plaintiff examined herself as her own witness as PW-1 and closed her evidence. The defendants examined Gurbans Singh Gill as DW-1.

The learned trial Court, after appraisal of evidence, returned findings on issue Nos.1 and 2 against the plaintiff. However, issue No.3 was decided against the defendants. In view of findings on issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment and
decree dated 31.8.1985 passed by the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar.

The plaintiff preferred first appeal which was heard by Shri A.B.Singh Wasu, the then Additional District Judge and ultimately, the appeal was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated
30.7.1986.

None has appeared on behalf of the appellant.

I have gone through the record of the case.

From the perusal of record, it is revealed that the plaintiff/appellant absented herself from 14.10.1972 without sanction of leave and thereafter in spite of number of opportunities granted to the plaintiff, she did not join her duties. She filed civil suit in which the respondents offered to join her duty but in spite of that, the plaintiff has not joined her duty at her place of posting. The continued absence from
duty for seven years without sanction of leave is itself is a serious misconduct, in view of authority reported as Maan Singh Versus Union
of India and others, 2003(2) S.C.T. 84. Otherwise also, it is a pure question of fact regarding her absence. There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the plaintiff absented herself from her duty without any sufficient cause. That, being a finding of fact, cannot be challenged in Regular Second Appeal. No substantial question of law has arisen for determination by this Court in this Regular Second Appeal.

Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.

Decree sheet be prepared and the files of both the Courts be returned after due compliance.

( K. C. Puri )
Judge

Dr Madhur Tayal versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Dr. Madhur Tayal,
Deptt. of Forensic Medicine,
Government Medical College,
Patiala (Punjab).
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Government Medical College,
Amritsar (Punjab).
….Respondent

C.C. NO. 2327 of 2007

ORDER

Present: -
Dr. Madhur Tayal, Complainant in person.
Dr. Gaurv, Assistant/PIO is present.

The complainant, Dr. Madhur Tayal, filed a complaint dated 12.12.07, received in the Commission on 19.12.07, that his original application dated 30.08.07 along with the requisite fee of Rs.100/- has not been attended to.
During the course of hearing it has come to light that another application dated 26.12.07 had also been filed to the PIO Medical College, Amritsar since the complainant had not received any response on his original application dated 30.08.2007. A lot of confusion has been created because of these two letters. The respondent has brought all the information sought by the complainant and is presented in the court. In case of point regarding the refund of Rs. 3000/-, the decision is pending as explained in letter of Director, Research & Medical Education, Pb. vide letter dated 27.06.2007. The complainant is satisfied but wants compensation for the “loss or other detriment suffered” under section 19(8)(b).

19(8)(b) Appeal :- 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”

Before acceptance demand for compensation under section 19(8)(b) of RTI Act 2005 made by the complainant, respondent is given an opportunity to file an affidavit if he wants to counter the demand for compensation within 15 days.
The case is adjourned to 11.06.2008 at 2.30 P.M. for further proceedings.

(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 28.04.2008

Sh Kuldeep Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Kuldeep Singh,
S/o Sh. Kashmir Singh,
Vill. Japhalpur, P.O. Bhattian,
Teh. & Distt. Gurdaspur.
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o The President,
Govt. Medical College, Majitha Road,
Amritsar.
….Respondent

C.C. NO. 1993 of 2007

ORDER

Present: -
None on behalf of the Complainant.
Sh. Surinder Singh, Accountant/APIO on behalf of the Respondent.


Sh. Kuldeep Singh had filed a complaint in the Commission on 29.10.07 received in the Commission on 8.11.07 in which he had stated that his application in form-A on 26.09.07 has not been attended to.
Today Sh. Surinder Singh, Accountant/APIO is present and has presented proof that identical case has been disposed of in the Hon’ble Court of Sh. P.K. Verma, State Information Commissioner on 15.02.08. Therefore, the case is hereby dismissed.


Sd/-
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 26.03.2008

Sh Kuldeep Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Kuldeep Singh,
S/o Sh. Kashmir Singh,
Vill. Japhalpur, P.O. Bhattian,
Teh. & Distt. Gurdaspur.
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Office,
O/o The President,
Govt. Medical College,
Majitha Road, Amritsar.
….Respondent

C.C. NO. 1993 of 2007

ORDER

Present: -
None on behalf of the Complainant & Respondent.

The complainant Sh. Kuldeep Singh filed a complaint dated 29.10.07 received in the Commission on 8.11.07 that his application dated 26.09.07 has not been attended to. A notice of hearing was issued to both the parties to appear on 18.02.08 at 2:00 pm. Today none has appeared from either side. This being the first hearing a lenient view is taken and the fresh date of hearing is provided. The PIO is hereby directed that at the next hearing he should be present otherwise action pertaining to show cause notice will be issued. The next date of hearing is 26.03.2008 at 2:00 pm
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 18.02.2008

Kuldip Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. Kuldip Singh,
S/o sh. Kashmir Singh,
Vill. Jafalpur,
P.O. Bhattia, Tehsil & Distt. Gurdaspur. _________________ Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
Govt. Medical College,
Majitha Road, Amritsar. ________________ Respondent


CC No.89 of 2008

Present:
i) None on behalf of the complainant
ii) Dr. Gopal Singh, Associate Professor, on behalf of the respondent

ORDER

Heard.
The respondent states that the information asked for by the complainant in this case is available in the office of the Director, Medical Education and Research, and it is the PIO, o/o DRME to whom it should have been made in the first instance. Since, however, this case has already been very much delayed, the respondent has undertaken to get the information from the office of the DRME and send it to the complainant.
Disposed of.
(P.K.Verma)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 15th February, 2008

dr Virinder Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Dr. Virinder Singh, I-A,
Circular Road, Opp. Govt.
Medical College, Amritsar.
…..Appellant
Vs.

Public Information Office,
O/o The Principal,
Govt. Medical College, Amritsar.
….Respondent

A.C. NO. 337 of 2007
ORDER

Present: -
Dr. Virinder Singh, Complainant in person.
None on behalf of the Respondent.

Notice of hearing of this complaint was issued on 31.12.07 to both the parties. Only the complainant attended the Commission on 14.01.08. He stated that his similar complaint No. CC-1293/2007 has been disposed of on 3.01.08 by the bench headed by Lt. Gen (Retd.) P.K. Grover, State Information Commissioner, Punjab. He further stated that the present appeal case is identical to his previous complaint CC-1293/2007 as such he does not want to pursue the present appeal case. In view of this the case is dismissed.

Sd/- (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 14.01.2008

Virinder Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector-17C, Chandigarh:

Dr. Virinder Singh,
1-A, Circular Road,
Opposite Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar. .………. Complainant

V/s

Public Information Officer,
O/o The Principal,
Government Medical College,
(Pb.) ………….. Respondent

CC. No. 1293/2007
Order

Present:
None on behalf of the Complainant.
Mr. Rajinder Kumar, APIO, Naveen Sharma, Clerk.
-------
1 On the last date of hearing on 11.12.2007 it was directed that the PIO Respondent will submit an affidavit explaining/ showing cause as to why penalty be not imposed on him as per Section 20 of the RTI Act for delay in supplying information. This affidavit was to be submitted by 25.12.2007 to the Commission.

2 The affidavit dated 24.12.2007 was accordingly submitted and taken on record.

3 Through this affidavit the Respondent has explained the following:-
a) That the Complainant Dr. Varinder Singh vide his letter No. VSS-4, dated 30.11.2006, requested this office to supply him the photo copies of pay fixation of 67 doctors done by this office on 01.01.1996.
b) That out of list of 67, photo copies of pay fixation of 37 doctors were supplied to the complainant vide this office letter No.

2718/PF, dated 29.1.2007 and letter No. 4144/PF, dated 8.02.2007 Rest of the information could not be supplied to the Complainant being old record .
c) That the Complainant vide his letter No. VSS-24, dated 14.2.2007 submitted another list of 22 doctors for supplying the photo copies of pay fixation done on 1.1.1996. In this connection, it is submitted that this office was not in a position to supply the information asked for by the Complainant as the same was not available in the personal record of the concerned doctors.
d) That the Complainant vide his letter No. VSS-33-34, dated 10.5.2007, addressed to Chief Information Commissioner, Pb, Chandigarh and received in this office on 12.11.2007 through State Information Commission, Punjab, letter No. PSIC/Legal/2007/7636, dated 5.11.2007 had desired that if the copies of pay fixation were not available in the personal record then photo copies of relevant pages of service books may be supplied to him which may serve his purpose. In this context, it was stated that photo copies of relevant pages of the service books on which the entries of pay fixation of the concerned 37 doctors were recorded, have already been supplied to the Complainant vide this office letter No. 38185/PF, dated 29.11.2007.
4 The Respondent also highlights that the recovery was made after refixation of pay only due to observations raised by the Accountant General (A&E), Punjab, Chandigarh. Also that Accountant General, Pb, Chandigarh vide letter No. Pen 8/V-16/06-07/13616-17 dated 16.03.2007 informed to the Complainant that if the Complainant had any grievances in regards to his pay refixed by this office, he may contact the Grievances Redressal Cell of his office.


5 The function of the Commission is restricted to the provisioning of information. The aspect of financial loss, if any, suffered by the Complainant is beyond the purview of the Commission.

6 After going over the facts of the case, I am of the view that the Respondent has not delayed/denied information deliberately and as such no penalty is required to be imposed on the Respondent.

7 The case is, thus, disposed of.

8 Copies be sent to both the parties.

Chandigarh. (P.K.Grover)
Dated : 03.01.2008 Lt. Gen. (Retd.)
State Information Commissioner

Dr Virinder Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
S.C.O. NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH

Dr. Virinder Singh,
1-A, Circular Road,
Opp: Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar.
….. Complainant
Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o The Principal, G
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar. ….. Respondent
CC No.1293 of 2007

ORDER

Present:
Dr. Virinder Singh, Complainant is present in person.
Dr. Kuldip Singh, Lecturer, Deptt. of Bio Chemistry-cum-PIO,
Govt. Medical College, Amritsar and Sh .Naveen Sharma, Clerk,
O/o Principal, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar.

1. On the last date of hearing on 20.11.2007, it was directed that all information as had been demanded by the complainant and not exempted, be provided to him or an affidavit be submitted in case any part of the information was not held on record/not available.

2 During today’s proceedings, the complainant states that he has received information on 29.11.2007, exactly one year after he had made the request i.e. on 30.11.2006. The information sought related to pay fixation carried out on 1.1.1996. Due to the delay in providing the requisite information he has faced a number of problems including a recovery being imposed on him during March 2007 amounting to Rs.70,000/- approximately. Had he been given this information in time, he would have represented and this recovery may not have been imposed on him. Also that he had to pay approximately Rs.23,000/- as advance of income tax. Due to the delay in supplying information he will now have to approach the Courts for redressal. In short, he has suffered due to the delay in provisioning of information. The complainant requests that a penalty be imposed on the Respondent for delay in supplying the information because of which he has suffered both financially as well psychologically. Further, he will have to approach the Courts for seeking redressal which may take considerable amount of time and further harassment.


3. Accordingly, it is directed that, the PIO of the Respondent will submit an affidavit explaining/showing cause as to why penalty be not imposed on him as per Section 20 of the RTI Act for delay in supplying information. This affidavit will be submitted by 25.12.2007 to the Commission.

4. Since the information stands supplied to the complainant, the case is closed as far as the information aspect is concerned.

5. To come up on 3.1.2008 at 2.00 P.M.

6. Announced in the hearing. Copies be sent to both the parties.




Chandigarh ( P.K.Grover )
Dated: 11.12.2007 Lt. Gen. (Retd.)
State Information Commissioner

Sh Kulwinder Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No.84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

Sh. Kulwinder Singh,
# 49, Street No. 04,
Sunder Nagar, Near Shivala Bagh-
Bhian, Amritsar. ---------------------------------Complainant.

Vs

Public Information Officer,
o/o Principal
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar. ------------------------------- Respondent.

CC No.1397 of 2007
Order

Present:
Sh. Kulwinder Singh Complainant in person.
Dr. Karnail Singh Professor and Head, Department of Paediatrics on behalf of the Respondent.

The information in question relates to the promotion of one Dr. Karan Kumar Sharma from Senior Lecturer to Assistant Professor and from Assistant Professor to Professor in the Government Medical College, Amritsar. According to the Complainant, the complete information demanded in relation to the promotion has not been supplied. The Respondent states that some part of the information is to be obtained from the Head Office, that is office of Director, Research and Medical Education, Punjab, Chandigarh. The Respondent is prepared to obtain the information from the Head Office and deliver the same to the Complainant.
2. In these circumstances, we direct that Respondent should deliver the complete information in response to request made by the Complainant within a period of two weeks, that is by 1st October, 2007.
3. This will come up for confirmation of compliance at 10.00 hours on 05/11/2007 in Chandigarh.

Rajan Kashyap
Chief Information Commissioner,
Jalandhar
17.09.2007

Lt. Gen. P.K.Grover (Retd.)
State Information Commissioner

DR AVTAR SINGH SAINI Vs STATE OF PUNJAB and OTHERS



Staff, fund shortage cripple Amritsar Medical College

Scandalous as it may appear, but that is how it is. To avoid derecognition by the Medical Council of India, Amritsar’s Government Medical College covers up its staff shortage by deploying doctors from elsewhere. It is short of as many as 62 teachers. During MCI inspections, new name plates are hung up outside rooms to make good the inadequacies in infrastructure.

The two other medical colleges at Patiala and Faridkot do the same when their turn for inspection comes. A simultaneous MCI inspection, which is now likely, may expose the shady games played in the state’s three government medical colleges.

Although some doctors call it a deliberate, planned attempt to run down reputed government medical institutions and erode patients’ faith in them to boost business of private hospitals, the medical scenario is pretty dismal, specially at Amritsar.

The unholy kidney scam marked a new low in medical ethics in the holy city. In defence of the scamsters, some attribute motives to the vigilance raids and ask why only two members of the authorisation committee, including the then Principal of Medical College, were targeted. The kidney racket flourished elsewhere in the state too, but no arrests were made at any place other than Amritsar.

After months, the present Medical College Principal, Prof P.S. Bedi, has revived the authorisation committee and, as a safeguard, plans to ensure police verification in each case. However, the MCI guidelines provide for neither any affidavit nor any police verification.

Started as a medical school in 1864 at Lahore, shifted to Amritsar in 1920 and upgraded to Medical College in 1943, the region’s premier institution produced the first MBBS batch in 1949. The college expanded by adding V.J. Hospital, Ram Saran Dass Parkash Wati Kakkar Children Ward and Family Ward, T.B. Sanitorium and Ram Lal Eye and ENT Hospital — all at different locations. In 1969 Guru Nanak Dev Hospital’s foundation stone was laid. Patients came from all over the region. Partap Singh Kairon was a regular and room no. 1 in the family ward was reserved for him. Some of the best doctors of this region and many settled abroad are products of this institution.

Politicians and bureaucrats ruling over Punjab from Chandigarh turn to the PGI for treatment or go abroad. They have financially starved Amritsar’s Medical College and stiffled its growth. Otherwise, it could have easily grown into a university. Faridkot’s medical university is Mr Parkash Singh Badal’s gift to his son’s electorate.

The medical colleges in the state are run by remote control from Chandigarh. All powers are centralised. Cumbersome procedures delay the release of funds. The hospitals sometimes do not have funds to pay their power bills. Shockingly, the Principal and the Medical Superintendent have financial powers of only Rs 500 each. The heads of departments have no financial powers. An arts college principal can hire staff on contract, not the Principal of a medical college. Such distrust and central control spreads dissatisfaction.



Sh Kulwinder Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No.84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

Sh. Kulwinder Singh,
# 49, Street No. 04,
Sunder Nagar, Near Shivala Bagh-
Bhian, Amritsar. ---------------------------------Complainant.

Vs

Public Information Officer,
o/o Principal
Govt. Medical College,
Amritsar. ------------------------------- Respondent.

CC No.1397 of 2007
Order

Present:
None is present on behalf of the Complainant.
Dr. Kuldeep Singh, Lecturer, Department of Chemistry on behalf of the Respondent.

Respondent states that in compliance with the order of the Commission dated 17.09.2007, complete information has been delivered to the Complainant as per his demand.

2. There is no rebuttal on behalf of the Complainant to this claim.

3. The matter is, accordingly, disposed of and closed.

(Rajan Kashyap)
Chief Information Commissioner
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.11.2007

Lt. Gen.P.K.Grover (Retd.)

State Information Commissioner

Dr Sohan Singh versus Government Medical College Amritsar

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, 1st Floor (Court No-2), Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Dr. Sohan Singh,
Associate Professor,
Deptt. Of orthopedics,
Govt. Medical College, Amritsar. ___ Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o. Principal Secretary,
Deptt. Of Medical Education & Research, Punjab,
Mini Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh. ____ Respondent

CC No. 1525 of 2007

Present: None


ORDER

Neither the complainant nor the respondent are present. It would appear that the complainant has received the required information and is, therefore, not interested in pursuing his complaint.

Disposed of.


(Kulbir Singh) (P.K.Verma)

State Information Commissioner, State Information Commissioner

Dr. Astha Takkar v. State of Punjab and Ors CWP-10457-2006 RD-P and H 5814 (22 August 2006)

C.W.P NO. 10457 OF 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 10457 OF 2006

Date of decision : August 4, 2006

* * * * *

Dr. Astha Takkar ............Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab & ors ...........Respondents * * * * *

CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S BHALLA

Present: Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, Advocate for respondent no.2.

Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The grievance of the petitioner is that although under 40% quota went for fresh graduates, a seat in Govt. Medical College, Amritsar was still available, but the petitioner was being denied admission wrongly and without any justification.

The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents. The following averments made in the written statement, taken by way of preliminary objection may be noticed as follows:

1. That the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in Madhu Singh s case has approved the post graduate admission schedule and directed that post graduate admission process be completed by 31st

May of the relevant

academic session. However the revised schedule has been approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India C.W.P NO. 10457 OF 2006 2

in the case of Amit Gupta & Ors. and directed that post graduate admission process be completed by 30th June,

2006 for the session 2006-07. Therefore, no admission can be made after 30.6.2006.


2. That the post graduate seats in various courses are counted by the respective Principal of Medical Colleges on the basis of availability of eligible teachers in the respective specialty. The Principal, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar sent the list of seats in P.G courses session 2006 to the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and the university published the same in Prospectus for P.G.E.T 2006. The first counseling was scheduled for 26 & 27 May, 2006. The Principal, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar vide letter No.1516/T-46 dated 22.5.2006 sent revised distribution of seats in P.G Course session 2006 due to transfer of eligible teachers from Govt. Medical College, Amritsar to other colleges and also informed that one set has been decreased in M.D (Obst. & Gynae) due to the transfer of Dr. Sujata Sharma, Prof. Obst. & Gynae to GGS Medical College, Faridkot. Therefore, the selection committee has rightly filled up the seats as available on 26.5.2006.

3. That the petitioner, is low in merit and cannot claim admission in M.D (Obst. & Gynae) over and above the merit of other meritorious candidates, as the petitioner is on merit No.36 under 40% quota seats, the last candidate selected in M.D (Obst. & Gynae) on merit No.8, therefore, there are many candidates between merit No.8 and 36 who can claim admission in M.D (Obst. & Gynae).

From the stand taken by the respondents, we find that the first counselling was scheduled for May 26/27, 2006 and the seats had to be determined keeping in view the faculty strength at that point of time. The C.W.P NO. 10457 OF 2006 3

respondents have maintained that keeping in view the faculty strength only 3 seats were available and as such they were filled up. Merely because another Member from the faculty had become available later on, would not be a ground to increase the seats which were decided to be filled up at the time of first counseling. The respondents have also maintained that the merit of the petitioner is low and her merit position is No.36 and therefore, as per the merit position, the petitioner cannot claim admission in M.D (Obst. & Gynae).

In view of the stand taken by the respondents, we do not find any merit in the petition.

Dismissed.

VINEY MITTAL
JUDGE

August 4, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

RITU JUDGE

Forensic Science degree of Govt Medical College invalid

Mohali, October 24, 2008

It s surprising but true. The MD Forensic Science degree being given out by the Government Medical College Amritsar for the past 23 years is not recognised by the Medical Council of India.

The degree has been awarded to over a hundred students since the starting of this course in 1985 but these students continue to hold degrees which have no validity. The students cannot apply for government jobs and also cannot teach in government medical colleges anywhere in India or abroad despite availability of jobs in the field.

The MCI s inspection of the facilities being provided by the college to run this degree was conducted in August this year, 10 years after the last inspection was carried out in 1998. The council has, after the inspection, declared the college unfit to run the course. It has also asked the college not to admit students for the 2009- 2010 batch.

A host of old students who passed out from the college with this degree have approached the government to press upon the college to make efforts to get the degree recognised. Its a shameful chapter in the history of the Punjab government. No one bothered to get the MCI inspection done. We had to virtually force the college authorities to invite their team for an inspection. Former students had to even dole out Rs 5,000 each for the arrangements for the MCI’s visit, alleged a former student.

We were also told that the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI in its report of 1998 have been met and there is a very strong possibility of getting the course recognised, but nothing materialised, added the student.

These students added that in case the MCI recognised the course even now, all former students stood to benefit as all degrees given out by the college over the years would be recognised. A similar course run by Government Medical College Patiala is recognised.

Despite the sorry state of affairs, no action has been taken against those responsible for the situation. Why has no action been taken against the present principal of the college, Dr J Gargi, who is the head of the Forensic Science Department, and the present Director Research and Medical Education (DRME), Dr JS Dalal, who is also the state s medico-legal adviser for years, questioned a student.

The students have now written a number of communications to the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Punjab Chief Minister to probe the whole matter.

Dr Dalal said the course had never been recognised and the reasons were known only to the current principal. He, however, admitted that when he was the principal of the college, no MCI team visited the college.

Principal Gargi said the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI team were being removed. He denied that any money had been taken from the students for the inspection. We are trying our best to get the degree recognised, he said.



Some other Colleges in Punjab
Malwa School of Nursing, Sardulgarh

Sardulgarh (District Mansa)
Punjab
Silver Oaks School of Nursing, Mohali (SAS Nagar)
Silver Oaks Multi-speciality Hospital Complex, Phase IX, Sector 63
Mohali (SAS Nagar) (District Mohali (SAS Nagar))
Punjab
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot
Kotakapura Road, Sadiq Road,
26-GGS Medical College Campus
Faridkot (District Faridkot)
Punjab
Aklia Group of Institutions, Aklia Kalan Village
Jaito Road, PO Goniana Mandi, 2kms from Goniana towards Jaito
Aklia Kalan Village (District Bathinda (Bhatinda))
Punjab
Mukesh Memorial Education ITC, Samana

Samana (District )
Punjab


Bhai Gurdas Group, Sangrur

Students voice
Write to us giving good and bad things about your college, we will publish it on this site. email us at punjabcolleges @ gmail.com (without spaces)
© www.punjabcolleges.com : Engineering Colleges and deemed Universities in India      Disclaimer