Central Information Commission
Keshaorao Budhaji Mendhe vs Department Of Posts on 12 April, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/158387
Keshaorao Budhaji Mandhe v. PIO, Department of Posts
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 01.02.2017, CPIO replied on 14.03.2017, FAO on 26.04.2017, Second
appeal filed on 14.08.2017, Hearing on 09.04.2018;
Proceedings on 12.10.2017: Appellant present. Public authority absent. Directions for
compensation and Show Cause issued.
Proceedings on 09.04.2018: Appellant present from NIC Gondiya, Public Authority represented
by CPIO. Mr D.A. Salve from NIC Nagpur
Date of Decision - 12.04.2018: Directions for compliance, Show-cause issued to Mr. Saranya U.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. Appellant complained that Rs 200 was deducted from his salary during his service as Grameen Dak Sevak but pension was not paid till date after his retirement on 7.3.2016. He wanted to know the status of his complaint and reasons for non-payment of pension. He filed first appeal but there was no response from the public authorities.
2. The Commission's order dated 20.01.2017:
2. Pension related information request is one which needs to be responded in 48 hours as per section 7 (proviso) of the RTI Act, as it is concerning life and liberty. Time and again this was declared by this Commission in many second appeals under RTI Act. The Department of Post Office is not at all considering these rights of the people. It is the duty of department to pay pension in the month of his retirement. If not, it has to be considered as inefficiency, disservice to those who served the Department, and lack of good governance. Their lethargy and inaction is obvious. He made a representation for pension. There was no response. By denying the response to his original application for pension, and also by remaining silent to his RTI application, the department has breached his right to pension, right to information and thus violated his right to life.
3. The Commission directs the Postal Department to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 immediately, and not beyond 10 days from today and furnish the complete information to him within 15 days, and also consider this second appeal as a complaint and address his grievance within one month, from the date of receipt of this order.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/158387 Page 1
4. The Commission directs the CPIO to show cause why maximum penalty shall not be imposed upon him for the above reasons within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
5. The Commission requires the Chief Post Master General to put in practice to sanction and pay pension within one month of retirement of GDS. The Chief Post Master General should have a little of humanity to understand the difficulties of a GDS, hence, is required to inform Mr. Keshorao, the time within which his pension amount will be sanctioned. Disposed of.
Decision :
3. The appellant sought information related to pensionery benefits given to Gramin Dak Servaks. He retired on 07.03.2016 and wanted to know whether he is in entitled for pension under Service Discharge Benefit Scheme (SDBS) NPS or not. He alleged that Rs. 200 was deducted under SDBS during his service period from 2011 to 2016. However, such amount deducted from his salary was not paid to him after retirement.
4. Mr. D.A. Salve, CPIO submitted that the SDBS scheme was a voluntary scheme and an employee was required to apply for being included as a member and receive the benefits of the scheme. He stated that the appellant was a Gramin Dak Sewak under category of Extra Departmental Staff of Department of Post and as per rules and there is no any provision of pension available for Gramin Dak Sewak. However only severance amount and gratuity was payable as terminal benefits after termination of service on attaining 65 years of age.
SDBS(Service Discharge Benefit Scheme) was introduced w.e.f 01.04.2011 with provision to deduct rupees 200/- from TRCA (Time related continuity Allowance) of Gramin Dak Sevak and same amount will be contributed by Govt. to the person/GDS. As SDBS Scheme was optional to Gramin Dak Sewak (copy of ruling enclosed for ready reference) and as per the office record applicant Shri K.B. Mendhe was not enrolled to SDBS. The applicant was terminated on attaining age of 65 years on 07.03.2016 and all terminal benefits i.e. severance amount Rs-54000/- and Ex Gratia Gratuity Rs-60000/- were calculated upto the date of his termination and paid to the applicant vide this office memo dated 17.03.2016 and also Rs-9026/- as EDAGIS was paid on 07 .04.2016.
5. The Commission finds that the submissions made by the Mr. D.A. Salve, CPIO contradictory. Mr. Salve stated that his application for subscribing to that CIC/POSTS/A/2017/158387 Page 2 pension scheme was not available, and hence he could not get pension. In the SDBS scheme the employees were required to enrol by signing an application, after which Rs. 200 will be deducted every month, based on that he would be paid monthly pension from the date of retirement. Rs. 200 was deducted from the appellant's TRCA as if he is enrolled as subscriber. If Rs. 200 was deducted from appellant's salary, he is entitled to pension. The CPIO must explain on what basis or authorisation such deduction was made from the appellant's TRCA every month. If the information is lost by the public authority, they should bear the burden to pay pension as per the scheme. They did neither.
6. Mr. Salve stated that the decision for return of amount collected from his salary from 2011 to 2016 along with interest has to be taken by the Directorate of Postal Account and he assured the Commission that he would refer this case to the DAP for payment of interest amount to the appellant. He stated that they had not received the show-cause notice issued by this Commission and replied on the basis of the current status of the matter after receiving the hearing notice for the second appeal. He requested for some more time and prayed that a fresh show-cause notice be issued to Mr. Saranya U., CPIO as on 14.03.2017.
7. The Commission directs Mr. D.A. Salve, CPIO considering this as complaint/second appeal, to give complete status information regarding the payment of interest along with action taken report to the appellant, within 15 days from this date.
8. The Commission directs Mr. Saranya U., CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for not furnishing the information sought and public authority be ordered to pay compensation to appellant. Mr. Saranya U. is directed to send his explanation, before 28.05.2018 and the matter is posted for compliance and penalty proceedings on the aforesaid date.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/158387 Page 3