Central Information Commission
Rumali Chakma vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 23 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2024/646370
Rumali Chakma ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: UCO Bank,
Kolkata ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 20.08.2024 FA : 19.09.2024 SA : 18.10.2024
CPIO : 19.09.2024 FAO : 15.10.2024 Hearing : 17.09.2025
Date of Decision: 22.09.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. In TA Bill having TA ID 56985062024455207 applied by Rumali Chakma, Manager, of UCO Bank, transfer allowance of Rs. 40000 was not paid to her in her TA bill. As a result supplementary was raised with remarks TRANSFER ALLOWANCE NOT PAID, which was rejected giving remarks NOT ELIGIBLE. Please provide the concerned circular of the Bank which mentions that she is not eligible to receive the lumpsum compensation on transfer of Rs.
40000 as mentioned in the UCO Bank (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979 and Page 1 of 4 9th Joint Note on Officers wage revision. Flowchart of TA ID attached for your ready reference.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"As per extant guidelines of the Bank, an Officer is eligible for lumpsum amount/transfer allowance for expenses connected with packaging, local transportation, insuring the baggage etc. You, Manager, EMP No.- 56985 and your spouse, Sri Hindol Chatterjee, Asst Manager, EMP No.-59107, are both working in UCO Bank and were previously posted at same centre i.e., Tinsukia, have been transferred to same place i.e., Agartala. You both reported to that centre on 18th June, 2024. Your spouse Sri Hindol Chatterjee. Asst Manager. EMP No.-59107, already claimed the lumpsum and transfer allowance of Rs. 40000/- in his TA Bill Id 5910706202445559 towards expenses related to the packaging, local transport, insurance expenses for shifting the household goods which was already sanctioned and paid to him.
Therefore, considering you and her spouse, Sri Hindol Chatterjee, as a family unit and shifting of family household goods altogether, the lumpsum amount was paid to one member and accordingly you are not eligible for claiming lumpsum in your TA Bill Id 56985062024455207.
TA Bill Id of your spouse and yours is enclosed for your reference."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 15.10.2024 stated as under: -
"Copies of the relevant Circular/Guideline viz. CHO/PMG/56/2023-24 dated 27.03.2024 [Page No. 7, Point No.-XIV] and CHO/POS/2024-25/10 dated 09.05.2024 [Regulation 42, Page No.41, Paragraph 1] are enclosed herewith for your reference."Page 2 of 4
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.10.2024.
5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Rajkumar Meena, AGM, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought copy of circular w.r.t not considering him eligible for Transfer allowance against which a detail reply as per their records had been provided to the appellant on 19.09.2024. Moreover, the FAA also had furnished copy of the relevant circular to the appellant on 15.10.2024. A written submission dated 15.09.2025 of the respondent has been taken on record.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought clarification and opinion for his non eligibly regarding Transfer allowance, which do not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011. The following was thus held:
"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority......."
8.. However, the CPIO and the FAA have provided available information to the appellant vide letter dated 19.09.2024 and 15.10.2024. In view of the above, the Page 3 of 4 Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 22.09.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO UCO Bank Head Office, Operations and Services Department, Head office, 2, India Exchange Place, 1st Floor, Kolkata - 700001 2 Rumali Chakma Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)