Jagdish Lal Arora vs Bank Of India on 28 November, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Jagdish Lal Arora vs Bank Of India on 28 November, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 08.03.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 08.01.2021 and first appeal dated 08.02.2021:-

Since the writ petition is pending in High Court of Delhi provide information how much provision for accrued expenses has been made by the Bank for the year 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 towards pension, commutation of pension, interest on gratuity for late payment as per international financial reporting standards to reflect the true picture of the A/cs.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 08.01.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Page 1 of 4 Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated15.02.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrievedby the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 08.02.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved bythat, the appellant filed second appeal dated08.03.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated08.03.2021 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.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated15.02.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"On going through the RTI application, we note that the contents therein are mostly grievances/comments relating to the disciplinary action. Since the RTI is not a forum for redressal of grievance we are not commenting on the same. We are also unable to understand whether the query raised by you is in connection with the grievances raised in the application. However, you request for information was forwarded to TBD & Finance Department at Head Office and it is informed by Finance Department that the provision towards the liability for pension & gratuity is done on the basis of the actuarial valuations certificate provided by the actuary."

The FAA did not pass any order.

5. The appellant attended the hearing in personand on behalf of the respondent Ms.Jaicy Dwivedi, Law Officer, Bank of India, Mumbai, attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that desired information was not provided by the respondent.He further submitted that he was dealt with departmental enquiry and got punishment. He informed that he had filed a writ in the High Court and the matter was Page 2 of 4 pending. Therefore, he sought aforesaid information for submissions of same in the court. However, the same was denied by the respondent.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already replied to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act. They further submitted that the appellant had raised certain grievance with regard to his pension and gratuity. Although, the query may not fall within the definition of "information" under the RTI Act, they referred the matter with the concerned department and the reply received had been informed to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the respondent vide letter dated 15.02.2021. Moreover, the information sought was not specific and definite. As regard to the accrued expenses made by the Bank for the year 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 towards pension, commutation of pension, interest on gratuity for late payment, the respondent informed that provision towards the liability for pension & gratuity was done on the basis of the actuarial valuations certificate provided by the actuary. That being so, there appears to be no infirmity in the reply given by the respondent. There appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 23.11.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Bank of India RTI Cell, Legal Department, 4th Floor, EAST Wing, Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(EAST), Mumbai 400051 The FAA Bank of India RTI Cell, Legal Department, 4th Floor, EAST Wing, Star House, C-5, G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(EAST), Mumbai 400051 Shri Jagdish Lal Arora, Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission