Central Information Commission
Ms.Halina Khatoon vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited on 18 May, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01422
Dated, the 18th May, 2009.
Appellant : Ms.Halina Khatoon
Respondents : South Eastern Coalfields Limited
This second-appeal was heard through videoconferencing on 27.04.2009. Commission's hearing was conducted from the CIC office at New Delhi. Respondents were present at NIC Studio at Bilaspur and the appellant was represented by her son, Md.Muzibur Rahman, who was present at NIC Studio, Korba.
2. This second-appeal originated in appellant's RTI-application dated 12.07.2008, which comprised the following requests for information:-
"Kindly provide me the following information regarding Pension fund the applicant submitted Letter No.Nil 18.09.07 to the P.M., SECL, Banki Colliery ([sic]) information as required as follows:
1. Daily progress report of above application.
2. Date of Amount refund with Total Amount.
3. If, Amount Not refunded to applicant than Action taken by SECL till date with copies of all correspondent.
4. Name of the Officer responsible for not refunding the amount.
5. Total interest incurred on Balance Amount up to till date."
3. CPIO's reply dated 07.08.2008 enclosed a communication from the holder of the information dated 23.07.2008, which stated as follows:-
"Subject: Information sought by Mrs.Halima Khatoon, Qtr.No.NCH B-12, PO-SECL Gevra Project, Distt- Korba (CG) under RTI Act, 2005 regarding action taken on the application (05 points) submitted by her at Banki Colliery on 18.09.07 in connection with letter No.SECL/BANKI/PF-PAGE/03/3774 dt.29.10.03. AT-18052009-13.doc Page 1 of 5 Kindly refer to your letter No.SECL/CGM/KB/PIO/53/08/3220 Dated 18.07.08 on the above subject. As desired we would like to inform you that Personnel Manager, SECL Banki Sub Area vide letter No.3774 Dated 29.10.03 has intimated to Smt.Halina Khatoon, Qtr. No.NCH B-12 Dipka to deposit Rs.1,07,761.00 for CMPF 98 for pension. This is as per gazette notification dated 13.02.03 in which it is very clear that the CCLPF employees presently working or ex-employees who retired from service are eligible for CMPF 98 pension scheme are have to [sic] give their option within one year from the date of notification whether they are interested for CMPF 98 pension scheme within one year failing which there [sic] claim shall be forefitted [sic] in the pension scheme ([sic]) Smt. Halina Khatoon reported this office in the month of Jan 08 regarding refund of 2% pension amount after lapse of 04 year and she was informed about the CMPF 98 pension scheme and the 2% pension amount has already been deposited with CMPF Office by Korba Area Hd. Quarter. The amounts deducted from the period from 01.04.89 to 31.03.98 and the same is not refundable as per gazette notification since she has to claim this amount within a period of one year regarding accepting the scheme of CMPF 98 or other wise before the depositing amount with CMPF Office Dhanbad that is the final chance was given to the CCLPF employees who where [sic] merge in CMPF 98 in the year February 2003.
In the office of CMPF Banki Sub Area a complaint register maintained to deal with day to day problems of workers are Ex- employees regarding CMPF and CMPS. As per record no such complaint was registered or any application appear to have been received in this office so that the action would have been taken by the management of Banki Sub Area. As earlier also such similar claim have been received from one Sri B.R.Banjare Ex- CCLPF employee who has requested for refund of 2% pension the matter was referred to CMPF Office Bilaspur and discussed personally and they have intimated to deal the case as per the gazette notification dated 13.02.03 thee no such provision of refund 2% pension amount to the employees who failed to give option within one year from the date of notification.
The application made by Smt.Halina Khatoon W/O Late A.R.Ansari does have any merit and the complaint is baseless and false.
AT-18052009-13.doc Page 2 of 5 You are requested to given suitable reply to the authority."
4. CPIO also enclosed the copies of the Gazettes of India Nos.72, 551 and 73. Apparently, the above communication of the Sub-Area Manager ⎯ the holder-of-the-information ⎯ was based upon these Gazettes of India.
5. Appellate Authority, in his order dated 15.09.2009 on the appellant's first-appeal, endorsed the information furnished to the appellant by the CPIO and the holder-of-the-information.
6. Appellant has come before the Commission in second-appeal stating that the information provided to her was not relevant to the queries she had made and that respondents had not considered her request in proper perspective.
7. The second-appeal was earlier heard on 02.02.2009 when an interim order dated 23.02.2009 was issued directing as follows:-
"This matter came up for hearing on 02.02.2009 through videoconferencing. Respondents (SECL) were present at the NIC facility at Bilaspur and the appellant at Korba. Commission conducted the hearing from the CIC office at New Delhi.
2. A perusal of the RTI-application of the appellant dated 12.07.2008 reveals that it is regarding the pension funds to which the appellant seems to be entitled. CPIO's reply was furnished to her on 07.08.2008.
3. During the hearing, CPIO stated that the information requested by the appellant was held by the CMPF organization.
4. Considering the fact that the information requested by the appellant is her pensionary benefit, it is important that proper efforts are made to collect and collate all requisite information, wherever such information might have been held.
5. Accordingly, it is directed that CPIO, SECL shall make a reference to the holder-of-the-information or the CPIO, CMPFO, to provide the information requested by the appellant. CPIO will collect this information from CMPFO and transmit it to the appellant within 5 weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.
AT-18052009-13.doc Page 3 of 5
6. Concurrently, the CPIO, CMPFO is hereby directed that he will establish contact with the CPIO, SECL and ensure that the requested information, or the reply that may be appropriate in this matter be provided to the CPIO, SECL within four weeks of the receipt of this order.
7. This matter shall be heard again on the next date of hearing. CPIO, SECL and CPIO, CMPFO shall be present for the hearing."
8. Respondents initiated action on the basis of the interim directive of the Commission, following which they came to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to receive an amount of Rs.30,652 (Rs.9,303/- as Principal and Rs.21,349/- as a belated interest) which was proportionate to the 2% pension contributed by her late husband Mr.A.R.Ansari. Accordingly, through a letter dated 19.03.2009 of the Sub-Area Manager, SECL Banki Sub-Area, the cheque for the above amount was sent by registered post to the appellant's address.
9. Respondents thereafter filed a submission before the Commission that all the outstanding dues admissible to the appellant have been delivered to her which also settles the matter regarding her claim.
10. This matter was heard again through videoconferencing on 27.04.2009.
11. Respondents reiterated the points made by them through their written-submissions.
12. Appellant's rep. Md.Muzibur Rahman demanded that penalty proceedings be drawn against the respondents for violating the Commission's interim order. According to him, the interim order dated 23.02.2009 did not authorize the respondents to transmit the outstanding amounts through cheque to the appellant. That decision, according to the appellant, was to be made by the Commission.
13. It is also his argument that in view of what the respondents had now decided regarding the outstanding dues of the appellant, their earlier response that she was not entitled to receive any amount was incorrect and misleading. He, therefore, demands that penalty proceedings should be drawn against the respondents.
AT-18052009-13.doc Page 4 of 5 Decision:
14. The interim order of the Commission dated 23.02.2009 was made in order to egg on the respondents to constructively re-examine the claim on the outstanding amount of Rs.30,652/- held in the name of the appellant's late husband. It is true that respondents had informed the appellant through their earlier reply that in spite of the directives of the Government, no amount was payable to her from the deposits of her late husband. Following the Commission's directive to examine the matter afresh, respondents had apparently revised their earlier position in a spirit of co-operation and on humanitarian consideration of rendering help to the widow of their deceased employee. It would be wrong to deduce from this that respondents had purposefully attempted to misguide and mislead the appellant.
15. In my view, what the respondents have done is evidence of their adopting a more resilient and constructive approach to the problems of the widow of a deceased employee and coming out to render help to her ⎯ Rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
16. It would be wholly inappropriate to penalize the respondents for being cooperative and constructive. I would have expected the appellant to be happy with the result rather than complain about the failure of the respondents to provide a similar response earlier.
17. In view of the above, I do not propose to initiate penalty proceedings against the respondents.
18. Appeal closed.
19. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-18052009-13.doc Page 5 of 5