Central Information Commission
K L Vadhwani vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 27 May, 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/UCOBK/A/2024/111736
K L Vadhwani ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: United Commercial
Bank (UCO), Kolkata ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 16.12.2023 FA : 22.01.2024 SA : 16.04.2024
CPIO : 16.12.2023 FAO : 22.01.2024 Hearing : 19.05.2025
Date of Decision: 27.05.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1. With reference to my various malls sent to you regarding 4th stagnation Increment as per HO circular CHO/PMG/57/20-21 dr 04.03.21 4th stagnation increment is given to the Employees/Officers who were otherwise eligible but retired during the period from 01.11.12 to 30.04.15 with monetary benefit from 01.05.15.
2. Kindly clarify that if an officer in scale 2 is eligible for 4th stagnation Increment on 01.11.12 retired on or before 30.04.15 is given benefit of full 10 months notional benefit for calculation of pension or not?Page 1 of 5
If yes, then why I have been denied benefit of 4th stagnation Increment in pension for full 10 months & given benefit for only 8 months (ignoring remaining 2 months notional benefit for calculation of pension) to me je K.L.Vadhwani PFM 22314 who retired on 31.12.15 & was also eligible for notional benefit of 4th stagnation Increment from 01.11.12 (as last 3rd stagnation was given on 01.08.10) as per 8th joint note dated 25.05.15 & Uca Bank HO circular CHO/PMG/57/20-21 dt 04.03.21.
3. Have you not discriminated with me by not giving me full benefit in calculation of pension for 10 months average salary Including the 4th stagnation Increment for 10 months (2 months notional & 8 months monetary benefit) for which I am eligible wef 01.11.12 as stated above Kindly Clarify.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.12.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Query No. 1: No information sought.
Query No. 2 & 3: Shri K. L. Vadhwani (EMP No. 22314) was retired on 31.12.2015 as Scale-II Officer. He reached the maximum pay of scale on 01.08.2001, received First stagnation w.e.f. 01.08.2004, Second stagnation w.e.f. 01.11.2007, Third stagnation w.e.f. 01.08.2010 and Fourth stagnation w.e.f. 01.05.2015.
As per joint note dated 25th May, 2015, UCO Bank issued Circular No. CHO/POS/08/2015-16 dated 22nd June, 2015 where Officers in MMG Scale-II who have moved to scale of pay for MMG Scale III in terms of regulations 5(b) after reaching maximum of higher scale shall be eligible for three stagnation increments of Rs. 1460/-each for every three completed years of service and a further stagnation increment of Rs. 1460/- for two years of receipt of third stagnation increments. Provided that Officers who have completed two years or Page 2 of 5 more after receipt of the third stagnation increment will get the fourth stagnation increment w.e.f. 01.05.2015.
Subsequently, Bank issued circular no. CHO/PMG/57/2020-21 dated 04.03.2021 regarding clarification given by IBA through circular no. HR&IR/GMB/2020- 21/9578 dated 29th January, 2021 for release of stagnation increment notionally for the purpose of pension under 10th BPS/Joint Note to the employees/Officers who were otherwise eligible but retire during the period from 01.11.2012 to 30.04.2015 with monetary benefit from 01.05.2015.
Since Mr. K. L. Vadhwani was retired on 31.12.2015, therefore, the above circular no. CHO/PMG/57/2020-21 dated 04.03.2021 is not applicable in his case. However, he is eligible for fourth stagnation increment w.e.f. 01.05.2015.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.01.2024 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 16.04.2024.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Amar Singh Rathore, Assistant General Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that IBA had issued a circular dated 29.01.2021 for release of stagnation increment notionally for the purpose of pension under the 10th Bipartite Settlement/joint note for bringing uniformity among the employees/officer who continued to be in service post 30.04.2015. In light of the aforesaid claim, the appellant claimed that he was eligible for stagnation increment notionally for the purpose of pension and sought clarification on the subject-matter. However, the CPIO had not provided the requisite information to him, so far.
Page 3 of 57. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the appellant is hypothetical in nature, hence, was not covered within the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The CPIO further relied upon latest written submissions dated 14.05.2025 reproduced as under:
"It is also to be mentioned that the appellant had retired on 31.12.2015. Thus, the circular no. CHO/PMG/57/2020-21 dated 04.03.2021 is not applicable in his case, as his retirement was beyond the cut-off date provided in the circular. Although, 4th stagnation increment was given to the applicant as per extant guidelines, no discrimination was done."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate response has been given by the CPIO. It is noted that the information sought for by the Appellant does not strictly confirm to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as he has sought for clarifications to speculative and hypothetical queries. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that, outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to Page 4 of 5 such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
In view of the above, no further action is warranted in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 27.05.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO UCO Bank, Head Office 1, 4th Floor, Human Resource Management Deptt, 10 BTM Sarani, Kolkata - 700001 2 K L Vadhwani Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)