V. Durgesh vs State Bank Of India on 18 December, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

V. Durgesh vs State Bank Of India on 18 December, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 11.03.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 22.12.2017 and first appeal dated 31.01.2018:

(i) Copy of the annual return in from D under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 Sub Rule 5 sent by bank to the Regional Labor Commissioner, Bellary office for the accounting years 2014-15 to 2016-17 for the Cowl Bazar, Page 1 of 4 Bellary branch for the payment of bonus to the employees of the said branch.

(ii) Copy of the rules of bank permitting you to not to pay bonus to the appellant for the accounting years from 2009-10 to 2014-15 for his work in Cowl Bazar, Bellary branch.

(iii) Copy of the office notes made on his letters dated 23.10.2017, 11.12.217 and letter of Dharwad District Bank Employees Association, Hubli letter dated 06.11.2017 to you and letter of DDBEA dated 11.12.2017 to the respondent and Deputy General Manager, Bellary requesting you for the payment of bonus to the appellant.

(iv) Name, designation and present place of working of the officials of the bank, who were responsible for the payment of the appellant's bonus for the accounting years 2014-15 to 2016-17 and copy of the sections violated by the said officials in nonpayment of bonus to him and the punishment prescribed for such violations under the Payment of Bonus Act and service rules of the bank.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 22.12.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),State Bank of India, Regional Office, Bellary, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on18.01.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 31.01.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 12.02.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 11.03.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

Page 2 of 4

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 11.03.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requests the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the complete information sought in the RTI Application and impose a penalty as well as recommend disciplinary action against the CPIO for non-disclosure of information. Further, the appellant requests the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide a compensation of Rs. 5000 to him against the costs incurred.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 18.01.2018 gave a point-wise reply and refused to provide information on point No. (iv) of the RTI application stating that same did not come under the definition of "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 12.02.2018 concurred with the views given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Atul Karkare, Regional Manager and Shri Shankar Nad, Manager (HR), State Bank of India, Bellary, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent was vague and misleading. He stated that he was working as a causal daily labour in the bank and despite being eligible he was not given bonus by the bank. Hence, he filed this RTI application.

5.2. The respondent while defending the reply given by the then CPIO inter alia submitted that the appellant was not eligible for the bonus as on the date of filing of this RTI application as he had worked only for around 100 days. They informed the Commission that there was a statutory requirement of 240 days of working for any casual labourer in order to be eligible for bonus from his employer. Further, they stated that the appellant was now eligible for bonus and accordingly they had paid bonus amount of Rs. 7000/- to the appellant on 28.11.2019.

Page 3 of 4

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that an amount of Rs. 7000/- has been paid to the appellant on 28.11.2019, but the reply given to the RTI application by the CPIO is vague and incomplete. Hence, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide a detailed self-explanatory reply addressing all the issues, to the appellant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. With the above 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: 17.12.2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (R. Sitarama Murthy) (आर. सीताराम मू त) Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

STATE BANK OF INDIA Regional Business Office, BALLARI, Region - 4, AO 6, Network-III, State Bank Building, Station Road, Ballari - 583101 THE F.A.A, General Manager (NW-3), State Bank Of India, Local Head Office, No. 65, St. Marks Road, Bengaluru - 560 001 V. DURGESH Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission