Prakash Vinayak Chaudhari vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 16 February, 2023

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Prakash Vinayak Chaudhari vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 16 February, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 15.01.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 05.11.2020 and first appeal dated 11.12.2020:-

(i) Information about pensioners (Retirees)

(a) Average age of pensioners of the bank as on 31.03.2020

(b) No. of pensioners as on 31.03.2020

(d) Average age of family pensioners as on 31.03.2020

(e) No. of family pensioners as on 31.03.2020

(f) Average family pension Page 1 of 4

(g) Life expectancy considered for actuarial purposes while calculating pension burden

(ii) Information about pension optees in service

(a) Average age of pension optees in service as on 31.03.2020

(b) No. of pension optees in service as on 31.03.2020

(d) Expected % increase in "(c) above

(iii) Information regarding pension fund

(a) Balance of pension fund as on 31.03.2019

(b) Contribution to pension fund during 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020

(d) Total pension pay out (including family pension) during 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020

(e) Balance of pension fund as on 31.03.2020

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 05.11.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), IDBI Bank Limited, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 27.11.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 11.12.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 04.01.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 15.01.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 15.01.2021 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

Page 2 of 4

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.11.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "It is stated that the information/document sought by you with regard to the details of Pensioners (Retirees) is held by the Bank in its fiduciary capacity and disclosure of said information is exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.

(ii) It is stated that the information/document sought by you with regard to the details of Pension Optees in service is held by the Bank in its fiduciary capacity and disclosure of said information is exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.

(iii) It is stated that the information/document sought by you with regard to the details of Pension Fund is held by the Bank in its fiduciary capacity and disclosure of said information is exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005."

The FAA vide order dated 04.01.2021 denied the information under section 8 (1) (d), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Jayant Bhat, Deputy General Manager and APIO, IDBI Bank Limited, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information/document sought was being commercial confidence and held by the bank in its fiduciary capacity (employer-employee), and also the disclosure of information/document, pertaining to third party which was personal in nature. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (d), (e) & (j) of the Act. They further submitted that information sought was not maintained in the normal course.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had perfunctorily denied the information and claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (d), (e) & (j) of the Act. It may not be out of place to mention that the information sought on some points i.e. average age of pensioners of the bank as on 31.03.2020, average pension (after Page 3 of 4 commutation) and average age of family pensioners as on 31.03.2020 etc. were not maintained by the bank in normal course of business therefore it may not be appropriate to direct the respondent to compile such information. Besides, information sought about number of pensioners as on 31.03.2020, number of family pensioners, number of pension optees in service, balance of pension fund as on 31.03.2019 etc., were general information and disclosure of which would neither harm the privacy of any individual nor it would affect the commercial confidence of the bank. Accordingly, exemption claimed by the respondent was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the revised point-wise information/reply to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observation and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेश चं ा) ा Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 15.02.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO IDBI Bank Limited, IDBI Tower, Cuffe Parade, WTC Complex, Mumbai - 400 005 First Appellate Authority IDBI Bank Limited, IDBI Tower, Cuffe Parade, WTC Complex, Mumbai -400 005 Shri Prakash Vinayak Chaudhari, Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission