Central Information Commission
Shri. M S Sidhu vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 29 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000952/SG/14951
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2011/000952/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Shri MS Sidhu
1509 Sector 11- D
Chandigarh
Respondent : Mr. M.K Prasad,
PIO & AGM (LAW) Oriental Bank of commerce Head Office Harsha Bhawan Connaught Place New Delhi-110001 RTI application filed on : 11/11/2010 PIO replied on : 18/12/2010 First appeal filed on : 13/01/2011 First appellant authority replied on: nil Second appeal received on : 21/03/2011 S.No. Information sought Reply of PIO
1. Name, address, date of superannuation of all The exercise related to 2nd option to join the those ex-employees who had earlier retired on pension scheme is under process and at this time superannuation and now have applied for of point it is not possible to provide to provide second option of pension. the information.
2. Name, address of all those ex-employees who Information sought is voluminous and required to had earlier taken VRS in 2001 and have now be collected from various Regional Offices which applied for second option of pension. would disproportionately divert the resources of the bank.
3. Name, address, date of discontinuance of In term of establishment Circular No. service, of all those ex-employees who had HO/HRD/68/40/2010/436 dated 29/09/2010 the neither retired on superannuation nor taken 2nd option to join the pension scheme in terms of VRS on 2001, but discontinued their Pension Settlement dated 27/02/2007 is extended service(resigned) and have now applied for only to:
second option for pension. Also indicate if 1. Servicing employees their application for second option for pension 2. Those who superannuated has been approved or not. 3. Who opted for Voluntary Retirement under the Special voluntary Retirement Scheme
4. Families of deceased employees/retires. No other categories of ex employees are eligible to opt for pension. Accordingly, employees who Page 1 of 2 opted for retirement under Regulation 19 Officers Services Regulations, 1982 i.e. other than the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme are not eligible for one more of pension.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Insufficient and incomplete information provided by the PIO Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No reply received by the appellant.
Ground for the Second Appeal:
No response from FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant : Absent (at NIC Studio Chandigarh) Respondent : Mr. K.P Sinha, AGM; Mr. MK Prasad, AGM (LAW), Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Chief Manager The Respondent states that information was not ready when the RTIO Application was filed. The option had been given to pensioners to take a decision by December 2010 and hence the information could not be provided when the RTI Application was received in November 2010. Subsequently the information has been complied and sent to the Appellant on 23 June 2011.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information appears to have been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 29 September 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved Page 2 of 2