Central Information Commission
Smt. Nalini Sarad Jadhav vs Cantonment Board, Pune on 19 November, 2008
Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00988-SM dated 18.08.2007
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 19.11.2008
Appellant - Smt. Nalini Sarad Jadhav
Respondents -Chief Executive Officer, Pune Cantonment Board, Pune
ORDER
Smt. Nalini Sarad Jadhav of Pune filed an appeal on 18.08.2007 which was received in the Commission on 22.08.2007. It was transferred to us in September, 2008. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
Facts of the Case:-
2. Smt. Nalini Sarad Jadhav had approached the CPIO in the office of the Principal Director, Southern Command, Pune, for a number of information regarding withholding of her retirement benefits. In response to her request of 15.03.2007, it is not clear, if the CPIO concerned sent any reply/information to the Appellant. It appears that the original application had been addressed to the CPIO in the office of the Principal Director, Southern Command whereas the information was to be sought from the Cantonment Board. However, it is noted, that Smt. Jadhav did not receive any reply from the CPIO to whom she had originally addressed her letter, either providing her with the information or directing her to seek it from somewhere else. It is also noted that she filed an appeal to the Chief Executive Officer and First Appellate Authority, Pune Cantonment Board on 19.04.2007 stating that she had not received any reply from the CPIO till that date.
3. The First Appellate Authority, after hearing the case, disposed off the appeal on 07.06.2007 by directing the CPIO concerned to provide information regarding the legal dues to the Appellant within a month. The CPIO concerned sent a statement on 20.07.2007 showing the calculation of dues withheld by the Cantonment Board, presumably due to the occupation of quarter by the Applicant/Appellant.
4. It is against the order of the First Appellate Authority/CPIO that the Appellant has come to us with a second appeal. The Appellant has stated that the information she had originally sought from the CPIO on 15.03.2007 has not been given to her and what has been given to her by the CPIO on the orders of the First Appellate Authority is not what she wanted to know.
5. On perusal of the original application of the Appellant, it is noted that she had asked for the following information:-
(i) To confirm whether in a single storied chawl type building, opposite Pune Collage, Dhobi Ghat, rooms were allotted to washer women (dhobis) and some members of staff of the Pune Cantonment Board (PCB).
(ii) As per the Cantt. Board Resolution (CBR No. 33 Dated 24.7.1985), staff members who were about to retire and were in occupation of these quarters were to be treated as tenants after their retirement, alternatively, the accommodation will be sold to them. Indicate the progress made in implementation of this Resolution.
(iii) In a Resolution passed by the PCB on 03.12.1999, a decision was taken to increase the rent to Rs. 100/- per month for private parties and retired employers of the PCB who had not vacated the accommodation were asked to pay Rs. 2/- Per Sq. ft. as a penal market rent. This resolution was contradictory to the Resolution No. 33 passed by the PCB on 24.07.1985. Please explain the legality and propriety of the PCB's Resolution dated 03.12.1999 without cancelling the earlier resolution.
(iv) In identical cases of earlier retirees, their retirement benefits had been paid long back without making any deductions whereas in my case deductions from pensionary benefits are being made. This is not only against natural justice but also illegal as in terms of Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code prohibits attachment/withholding of pensionary benefits. Despite this legal position why she had been deprived of her retirement benefits.
(v) To explain the vindictive, illegal and baseless acts of Board officials for treating the rooms allotted to us as staff quarters.
6. From the statement sent by the CPIO to the Appellant on 20.07.2007, it is noted that, it only gives an account of the amount withheld and the amount deducted towards license fee/damage charges etc. though in the same statement, there is also a reference to the fact that the DA payment, the PF amount and encashment of leave amount have been withheld as the Appellant is in occupation of a quarter under the Cantonment Board. Clearly, the information contained in this statement is not exactly what the Appellant/Applicant had sought. The First Appellate Authority had also erred in directing the CPIO to submit information regarding legal dues to the Appellant and not the information she had actually sought.
DECISION
7. In view of the above, we are of the view that the Public Authority has not given the information which the Appellant had sought in her original application. We, therefore, remand this case to the First Appellate Authority with the direction that the information sought by the Applicant/Appellant in her original application dated 15.03.2007 to the CPIO, be given to her within 15 working days from the receipt of this order. The First Appellate Authority is also directed to inquire why no response/information was given to the Applicant by the CPIO in the stipulated period of 30 days. A compliance of this order be reported to us. The Appellant will be free to approach the Commission again if she is still not satisfied with the order of the First Appellate Authority.
8. The appeal is, thus, disposed off. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar