Central Information Commission
Sheetal S Kashalikar vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 25 June, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NIACL/A/2024/105333
Sheetal S Kashalikar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
The New India Assurance Com.
Ltd, HQ, New India Assurance Building,
87, M G Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.06.2025
Date of Decision : 24.06.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 01.09.2023
First appeal filed on : 26.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 15.11.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 31.07.2023 seeking the following information:
"I am an ex-employee of New India Assurance Co. Ltd, having retired in 2004. Relevant details including Emp/ S.R. No. 5991/S are given at the end of this letter. I am also attaching a copy of my Aadhaar No. 542417961675 as proof of my identity.
I now require the following information under the RTI Act 2005:Page 1 of 9
1. Copies of the Board Approvals for introducing these voluntary retirement schemes - SVRP in 2003 and SVRS in 2004.
2. Copy of the letter along with all enclosures, sent to GIPSA/ MOF communicating company's consent for introducing SVRS in 2004 for Class I, III and IV employees.
3. Copies of all the Board Approvals/ Resolutions passed in connection with SVRS-2004 scheme from 1.04.2004 till 30.11.2005.
4. All letters/ communications along with all enclosures from the Company to GIPSA/ MOF in connection with SVRS-2004 scheme from 1.04.2004 till 30.11.2005.
5. All letters/communications along with all enclosures from GIPSA/MOF to the Company in connection with SVRS-2004 scheme from 1.04.2004 till 30.11.2005.
6. Copy of the guideline/circular/ letter issued by the Appropriate Authority to HO Accounts Deptt based on which provision for 'Wage Revision' was made in the Balance sheet as on 31.03.2005.
7. Copy of Board Resolution/letter from GIPSA/any other document, based on which provisioning guidelines/directions were issued by the Appropriate Authority to HO Accounts Deptt.
8. Copies of all the Legal Opinions obtained in connection with SVRS-2004 scheme from 1 04.2004 till 30.11.2005.
9. Strength of Class I, III and IV employees on Company's rolls as on 31.03.2003 and as on 31.03.2004.
10. No. of Class I, III and IV employees who had opted for SVRS-2004 and were relieved on or before 31.03.2004.
11. No. of Class I, III and IV employees for whom Provision for Wage Revision arrears was made in FY 2004-05 and the amount provided for these employees pertaining to the years 2002-03 and 2003-04."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 01.09.2023 stating as under:
"As regards information sought, Point wise reply received from the concerned HRM Class I, Class II and Class III/IV and Corporate Finance & Accounts departments, Head Office is reproduced hereunder:
Point No.1: Copy of procedure for implementation of the provisions of the SVRS Scheme 2004 and SVRP Scheme 2003 for Class I and III & IV as per Board approval is enclosed as Annexure -'A'. We are attaching herewith extract from the Circular regarding Administrative Guidelines for Implementation of the provisions of General Insurance (Rationalization of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Page 2 of 9 Service of Development Staff) Amendment Scheme, 2003, pertaining to SVRP in 2003, as Annexure - 'B'.
Point No.2: As per available record consent letter was not sent to GIPSA/MOF.
Point No.3: Information not held.
Point Nos.4 & 5: With reference to your letter RTI Appeal No.9/2023-24 dated. 13.07.2023, we have already provided the Identical information. (Our letter Reference. No. RTI Appeal No.9/2023-24 dated 11.08.2023).
Point Nos.6&7: We made our efforts to trace the same but unable to trace it.
Point Nos.8 & 11: Information not held.
Point Nos.9&10: We are enclosing extract from our Company's Annual Report 2002-03 & 2003-04 as Annexure 'C'.
Your application thus, stands disposed."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 15.11.2023, held as under.
"The concerned Chief Manager's & Deemed CPIO's of Head Office were advised to revisit Point Nos. 1-7, 8 & 11, of the RTI Application dt. 31.07.2023. The revised reply received by the concerned Chief Manager's & Deemed CPIO's of Head Office are reproduced as under:
Point No.1: Board Approvals being internal confidential documents, cannot be provided.
Point No. 2: We reiterate the reply mentioned in our earlier RTI reply dated 01.09.2023, which is, "As per available record, consent letter was not sent to GIPSA/MOF".
Point No. 3: Board Approvals/Resolutions being internal in nature and hence confidential, cannot be shared.
Page 3 of 9Point No. 4 & 5: Department does not hold any letters /communications with GIPSA /MOF in connection with SVRS-2004 Scheme from 01.04.2004 till 30.11.2005.
Point No. 6 We would like to clarify that we tried to trace the copy of guidelines/circular/letter issued by the Appropriate Authority to HO Accounts Dept. based on which provisions for 'Wage Revision' was made in the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2005 but could not trace it as it is more than 18 years old.
Point No. 7: Board Resolutions being internal confidential documents cannot be provided and as regards to other papers, we are not able to trace the same.
Point No. 8: We reiterate the reply mentioned in our earlier RTI reply dated 01.09.2023, which is, "Information not held".
Point No. 11: We reiterate the reply mentioned in our earlier RTI reply dated 01.09.2023, which is, "Information not held".
This Order is in disposal of the above referred Appeal."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal against point No. 1 to 7 of RTI application.
5. A written submission dated 16.06.2025 filed by Ms. P Shobha Nair, Chief Manager-cum-CPIO is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"Appellant is Ex-employee of this Company (SR No. 5991/S) and retired in 2004. The information sought by the applicant vide letter dated 31.07.2023 is reproduced as under:
1. Copies of the Board Approvals for introducing these voluntary retirement schemes-SVRP in 2003 and SVRS in 2004.
2. Copy of the letter along with all enclosures, sent to GIPSA/MOF communicating Company's consent for introducing SVRS in 2004 for class I, III and IV employees.
3. Copies of all the Board Approvals/Resolutions passed in connection with SVRS-2004 scheme from 01.04.2004 till 30.11.2005.
4. All letters/communications along with all enclosures from the Company to GIPSA /MOF in connection with SVRS-2004 scheme from 01.04.2004 till 30.11.2005.Page 4 of 9
5. All letters/communications along with all enclosures from GIPSA/MOF to the Company to in connection with SVRS-2004 scheme from 01.04.2004 till 30.11.2005.
6. Copy of the guideline/circular/letter issued by the Appropriate Authority to HO Accounts Department based on which provision for 'Wage Revision' was made in the Balance sheet as on 31.03.2005.
7. Copy of Board Resolution/letter from GIPSA/any other document, based on which provisioning guidelines/directions were issued by the Appropriate Authority to HO Accounts Department.
8. Copies of all legal opinions obtained in connection with SVRS-2004 scheme from 01.04.2004 till 30.11.2005.
9. Strength of Class I, III and IV employees on Company's rolls as on 31.03.2003 and as on or before 31.03.2004.
10. No. of Class I, III and IV employees who had opted for SVRS-2004 and were relieved on or before 31.03.2004.
In accordance with the provision under section 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act. CPIO, Head office has responded to the RTI application vide letter ref. RTI:
HO/2023-24/208 dated 01.09.2023 wherein point wise reply has been provided to the Appellant. (Annexure 'A'). Not satisfied with the reply by CPIO, the applicant has submitted First Appeal dated 26.09.2023.
As the concerned Department requested additional time to respond, a request letter ref. 19/2023-24 dated 02.11.2023 was sent to Appellant (Annexure 'B') The said First Appeal was decided vide FAA Order ref. 19/2023-24 dated 15.11.2023 (Annexure 'C')'.
On receipt of Hearing Notice along with copy of Second Appeal, it is observed that the Second Appeal is raised against point nos. 1 to 7 only. Considering the same, we have once again approached the deemed CPIOs' of the concerned Departments to re-examine the RTI application dated 31.07.2023 & provide revised reply, if any.
Reply received from the Chief Manager & Deemed CPIO. CMDs' Secretariat under point nos. 1, 3, & 7 where Extract of the Minutes are provided is attached as Annexure 'D'.
Under point No. 2, Chief Manager & Deemed CPIO, HRM Class III/IV Cell, Head Office stand by their earlier reply i.e. 'as per available record, consent letter was not sent to GIPSA/MOF & under point nos. 4 & 5 sought after information is 'not held."
The Chief Manager & Deemed CPIO, Corporate Finance & Accounts Department responded to point no. 6 vide email dated 06.06.2025 stating that despite making Page 5 of 9 all possible efforts to trace the relevant documents, they were unable to locate the documents since it is 20 years old record.
In view of the above, we dutifully pray that the Hon'ble commissioner to dismiss the appeal as information 'as held' has been provided to the Appellant. It has always been our endeavor to promote the objectives of RTI in letter and spirit. A copy of our comments is being sent separately to the Appellant to her mail id [email protected] (as mentioned in her application) and also being uploaded on the official website compliance/add http://dsscic.nic.in/online- linkpaper."
6. A written submission dated 11.06.2025 filed by the Appellant is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"The Public Authority appears to be avoiding proving desired information/documents as it would expose wrongdoing on their part. It is my humble submission that in case they still refuse to part with the information, I should be allowed to inspect their concerned file(s). My response to the current status of my RTI application dated 31.07.2023 post FAA order:
1. Information 1-Copies of the Board Approvals for introducing SVRP-2003 and SVRS-2004 schemes FAA order - Board Approvals being internal confidential documents cannot be provided.
My submission - RTI Act does not treat Board Approvals as confidential.
2. Information 2 - Copy of the letter sent to GIPSA/MOF communicating Co's consent for introducing SVRS-2004.
FAA order - Consent letter was not sent to GIPSA/MOF.. My submission - A scheme with such huge financial and operational implications cannot be imposed on a Board run company without its express consent.
3. Information 3 - Copies of all the Board Approvals/ Resolutions passed in connection with SVRS-2004 scheme from 1.04.2004 till 30.11.2005. FAA order - Board Approvals being internal confidential documents cannot be shared.
My submission RTI Act does not permit Public Authority to refuse to provide Board Approvals/Resolutions. In any case 'certified contents' of such Board Approvals/ Resolutions can be provided.
4. Information 4 All letters/communications along with all enclosures from the company to GIPSA/MOF in connection with SVRS-2004 scheme from 1.04.2004 till 30.11.2005.
FAA order - Deptt does not hold any letters/communications with GIPSA/MOF in connection with SVRS-2004 scheme from 1.04.2004 till 30.11.2005. My submission - Such communications are normally done by the CMD Sectt and all docs being of extremely important nature are invariably held by them. With Page 6 of 9 multiple cases in various High Courts, such information will also be available with their legal cell and the Lawyers defending such cases.
5. Information 5 All letters/communications along with all enclosures from GIPSA/MOF to the company in connection with SVRS-2004 scheme from 1.04.2004 till 30.11.2005.
FAA order - Deptt does not hold any letters/communications with GIPSA/MOF in connection with SVRS-2004 scheme from 1.04.2004 till 30.11.2005. My submission - Such communications are normally done by the CMD Sectt and all docs being of extremely important nature are invariably held by them. With multiple cases in various High Courts, such information will also be available with their legal cell and the Lawyers defending such cases.
6.Information 6-Copy of the guideline/circular/ letter issued by the Appropriate Authority to HO Accounts Deptt based on which provision for wage-revision arrears was made in the Balance-sheet as on 31.03.2005.
FAA order - We would like to clarify that we tried to trace the copy of guideline/circular/letter issued by the Appropriate Authority to HO Accounts Deptt based on which provision for wage-revision arrears was made in the Balance- sheet as on 31.03.2005 but could not trace it as it is more than 18 years old.
My submission Nobody can buy that. The company made significant financial provision in the balance sheet based on which they got the tax benefit in the tax liability. Such an important circular would also be part of the Audit Report. Other likely sources would be CMD Sectt, GIPSA etc. Similar circulars were also issued by other PSU insurers.
7. Information 7-Copy of the Board Resolution/ letter from GIPSA/ any other document based on which provisioning guideline/ directions were issued by the Appropriate Authority to HO Accounts Deptt.
FAA order Board Approvals being internal confidential documents cannot be provided and as regards other papers we are not able to trace them. My submission - RTI Act does not recognise Board Approvals/ Resolutions can be declined by the Public Authority. In any case 'certified contents' of such Board Approvals/ Resolutions or guidelines issued to the Finance/Accounts can be provided."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
7. The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Shri S. K. Sethi and Shri Subhash Kapur present in person.
Respondent: Ms. P. Shobha Nair, Chief Manager/ CPIO present through videoconference.Page 7 of 9
8. The Appellant's representatives while reiterating the contents of RTI application expressed their dissatisfaction to the fact that the information furnished by the Respondent now with their written submission is incomplete and not in the tune of queries raised by the Appellant. They further submitted that upon introduction of the SVRS-2004 Pension Scheme, Appellant and many other optees took VRS, however, the Respondent Public Authority despite being a profit-making company did not revise the pension of the beneficiaries as per the subject scheme which led to filing of RTI application. The Appellant submitted that she along with others was relieved under the VRS between February and March 2004. Wage revision happened with effect from 01.08.2002 but the order for the same has been issued in the year 2005. The Respondents have distorted the implementation of the VRS Scheme and its related orders by not revising their pension based on the wage revision effective from 01.08.2002. Thus, their right to entitled revision of pension is being infringed.
9. Since, the Respondent has not furnished the requested information up to the mark, the Appellant filed the first Appeal and thereafter, the instant Second Appeal before the Commission to get justice. He further alleged that Respondent Public Authority did not have sympathy with their former employees, hence, the fate of their customers can be very well imagined where the claims are repudiated on flimsy grounds which are unjustified and inhuman. He prayed the Commission that in view of inconsistency in the response of the Respondent as can be seen against point No. 7 of RTI application, an opportunity of inspection of relevant records pertaining to point No. 1 to 7 of RTI application may be given to them to gather the relevant information.
10. The Respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of her written submission stated that an initial point-wise reply has been provided to the Appellant initially. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, she revisited the contents of RTI application and with the assistance of the deemed PIO she furnished a revised updated reply along with relevant available information to the Appellant. At the behest of the Commission, she volunteered to afford an opportunity of inspection of all the relevant documents to the Appellant on a mutually agreed date and time.
Decision:
11. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records observes that the Appellant has restricted her arguments to unsatisfactory response from the CPIO against point No. 1 to 7 of RTI Appellant. On the other hand, the Page 8 of 9 Respondent pleaded that a point- wise reply has already been provided to the Appellant in the first instance. While, on the receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, she revisited the contents of RTI application and provided a revised updated reply on the said points along with the copy of extract of board meetings to the Appellant vide latest written submission.
12. During the course of hearing the Appellant prayed the Commission to direct the Respondent to offer her opportunity of inspection of all the relevant records pertaining to queries No. 1 to 7 of RTI Application. In response to which, the Respondent agreed to do the needful to the Appellant. Accordingly, in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission directs the Respondent to collect and place all the records of information sought at point Nos. 1 to 7 of this RTI at one place within two weeks from receipt of this order. Once, the record is available at one place, the Respondent should inform the Appellant, affording her or through his representative an opportunity of inspection of records to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time but not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Intimation of date and time should be sent to the Appellant well in advance in writing within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of records as may be desired by the Appellant be provided, free of cost. Information which are exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act may be redacted/blackened out.
13. First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, The New India Assurance Com.
Ltd, HQ, New India Assurance Building, 87, M G Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)