Central Information Commission
Mr.S C Khandelwal vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 8 February, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003493/17236
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003493
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. S.C. Khandelwal
11, MIG, North Vijay Colony,
Agra-282004
Respondent : Mr. A. A. Allaqband
Public Information Officer & AGM UCO BANK Zonal Office, 26 Naval kishore road, Sky lark (Building 3rd floor Hazariganj, Lucknow 226001 RTI application filed on : 30/03/2011 PIO replied : 26/04/2011 First Appeal : 12/05/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 19/07/2011 Second Appeal received on : 30/11/2011 Information Sought:
Why bank is charging higher rate of interest on the account as per with the deposit rate up to 30 th June, 2010. From july 2010, the Branch charging 25 % above the deposit rate without assigning any reason. Provide the copy of guidelines which pertains to CC Limit against deposits for Staff members.
Reply of the CPIO:
Copy of guidelines enclosed Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory.
Order of the FAA:
'The extent rule for allowing loan against deposit to our staff members has been detailed in our Manual of instructions (December, 2006) VOL VI Part B page 998 which read as under- Loan to Staff members against their own deposit will continue to be governed by existing norms with regard to margin requirement arid rate of interest i.e. minimum margin @5% and rate of interest at par with deposit rate."
The above said rule does not provide any relaxations with regard to interest rate and margin on loans against own term deposit to our ex-staff member. In view of the above loan to ex-staff members against their own deposit with us will attract interest rate and margin as applicable to general public.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Not satisfied with the decision of the CPIO and FAA.Page 1 of 2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. A. A. Allaqband, Public Information Officer & AGM on video conference from NIC-
Lucknow Studio;
The PIO states that the information available on the records has been provided to the appellant. It appears that the appellant is seeking redressal of a grievance that the Bank is differentiating in the interest rates between the existing staff and formal staff. This is not a matter over which the Commission has any jurisdiction.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
Information available on the record appears to have been provided. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 08 February 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 2 of 2