Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

K Balasubramanian vs Indian Bank on 28 March, 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/IBANK/A/2024/102919

 K Balasubramanian                                             ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम
 CPIO: Indian Bank,
 Chennai                                                   ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 12.02.2022              FA      : 25.04.2022            SA     : 16.01.2024

 CPIO : 23.03.2022             FAO : 18.05.2022                Hearing : 20.03.2025


Date of Decision: 28.03.2025
                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.02.2022 seeking information on the following points:

 "I submit that I have served our esteemed Institutions for more than 3 decades and got relieved under VRS on 10.08.2001. There were certain issues like long leave availed by me which was treated as unauthorised absence as a result of which the increments sanctioned got postponed and not given effect to etc and as a result I fear that my Pension, Commutation, other Terminal Benefits were affected. I did not get any response to my letters addressed to then CO: Personnel Department. In the meantime wage revision was effected with effect from 01.04.1998.

Hence, I seek the following information under the Right to Information Act 2005

1. Whether the following letters sent by registered post (The said letters and evidence for sending by Registered Post enclosed) were received by the Management. a) Letter dated 26.07.2001 addressed to Regional Office Tanjore under copy to VRS Cell CO: Personnel Chennai (Copy enclosed) b) Letter dated 28.07.2001 addressed to AGM Personnel Chennai (Copy enclosed)c) Letter dated 02.06.2005 (Copy enclosed)

2. If the answer to Point No. 1 is "yes", whether any reply is given. If so, provide me with the copy of the same.

3. CO:Personnel Department letter Ref GR:O: SR. No. 50157: 2001, 28.02.2001 addressed to Pudupatti Branch enclosed. As per this letter the date of increment is 14.01.2001 and the Basic Pay fixed is Rs 8510/-. This Basic Pay only has been mentioned in my PPO issued on 07.02.2005. (Copy enclosed). In this connection, I place on record that Joint Note signed in connection with 7th Bi Partite was implemented with effect from 01.04.1998. The CO: Personnel Department issued the Circular vide their Cir No PRNL: 18/2000-2001 dated 15.07.2000.

In terms of 5th, 6th and 7th Bi- Partite my corresponding Basic Pay after taking into account the LOP as mentioned in CO: Personnel addressed to Pudupatti Branch under Ref GR:O: SR No 50157: 2001 dated 28.02.2001 are as under:

Date of increment Basic Pay as per 5th Bipartite, 6th Bipartite and 7th Bipartite are extracted as under:

12.04.1993: 3540-7130-11180 17.10.1994: 3780-7360-11520 07.01.1996: 3900-7820-12200 04.05.1997: 3900-8050-12540 14.07.1999: 8280-12280- Page 2 of 4 14.01.2001:8510-13220 While the above should have been the fixation and calculation of Pension, Commutation, Gratuity and PL encashment.

I have no information whether the 7th Bi Partite scales were implemented in my case and Payment Pension, Commutation, Gratuity and PL with applicable arrears were calculated and paid accordingly. This information may please be provided."

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.03.2022 and the same is reproduced as under

:-

"Point No. 1 & 2: No specific "information" as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 is sought.

However, in this regard, it is informed by our Corporate Office, HRM Department that no records as cited by the applicant are traceable with them.

Point No. 3: The query is of the nature of seeking interpretation clarification of /provisions (based on certain presumptions) which do not constitute "information" as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, and as such, the query does not fall within the purview of the said Act."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.04.2022. The FAA vide order dated 18.05.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.01.2024.

5. The Appellant was represented by Mani Krishnamoorthy through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Sreeja Rani, CM & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. At the outset, the Respondent invited the attention of the bench to the fact that the instant appeal was already decided vide Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2022/141384 on 28.02.2024.

7. The Commission having perused the relevant records observes that the Appellant filed the same second appeal twice over and having decided the earlier registered appeal, the instant appeal is treated as an infructuous and not maintainable registration.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 28.03.2025 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO Indian Bank, CO: Customer Service Cell, RTI Desk, Corporate Office, 66, Rajaji Salai, 5th Floor, Main Building, Chennai - 600001

2. K Balasubramanian Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)