Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Mrkrishan Kumar Gupta Sic Lucknow vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 14 August, 2015

                    Central Information Commission
 Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New 
                                 Delhi­110066
                              website­cic.gov.in

                   Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/002340
  
Appellant                           :    Shri Krishan Kumar 
Gupta, Ghaziabad
Public Authority         :    LIC of India, Meerut

Date of Hearing               :     14th August, 2015
Date of Decision              :     14th August, 2015

Present          :
Appellant                                   : 
                          Present at CIC
Respondent                               :              Shri 
                          A.K. Asthana, Manager (Law) & alternate 
                          CPIO and Shri A.K. Sharma, AO through 
                          VC from Meerut

                                    ORDER

1. Shri   Krishan   Kumar   Gupta,   the   appellant,   submitted   a   RTI  application dated 6.11.2013 seeking information on action taken  on   the  complaints  sent   by  him   along   with   the  photocopy   of  the  action   taken   report,   the   name,   designation,  address  and  mobile  no. of the officers who enquired into the complaints; the name,  designation, address and mobile no. of the departmental officer  who   committed   the   lapse   in   his   case   and   the   lapses   in   his  promotion   along  with   name,   address,  designation  and  mobile   no.  of the officers who were responsible for those lapses.  He also  added   that   he   was   sending   some   complaint   letters   along   with  applications   numbering   ten   which   were   not   enclosed   to   the  Commission.

2. The   CPIO   vide   his   letter   dated   5.12.2013   gave   a   response  which   covered   the   points   taken   in   the   10   letters   that   the  appellant had sent to them.  The FAA who had been approached by  the   appellant   because   of   his   dissatisfaction   over   the   CPIO's  response, responded that the CPIO had given all the information  sought by the appellant and that the correspondence made by the  appellant indicates that the appellant is using the RTI forum to  resolve his complaints and not seek information.

3. The   appellant   made   a   second   appeal   to   the   Commission  requesting  that the respondents may be directed to provide  him  the   factual   information   on   all   the   points   and   take   action  against the CPIO for providing incorrect information.

4. The   matter   was   heard   by   the   Commission.     During   the  hearing, the appellant stated that he was not satisfied with the  response given by the public authority.   His case for changing  the   nomination   of   his   mother   in   the   name   of   his   wife   took   20  long years to settle.  He had not been informed as to why he was  not promoted and also what he had not been given a copy of the  request letter  dated 14.12.1996 according  to which he had been  transferred in 1996.  These points were not mentioned in the RTI  application   and   were   perhaps   part   of   the   ten   enclosures   which  the appellant missed sending to the Commission.  The respondents  stated   that   the   appellant,   an   Assistant   in   the   LIC,   made   his  first  appeal   to  the  Chairman,  LIC   instead  of   making   it  to  the  Senior Divisional Manager, Meerut which was received by them on  17.12.2013   and   duly   replied   to.     He   sent   a   letter   dated  18.11.2014   followed   by   another   letter   dated   25.1.2015   stating  that   he   was   satisfied   and   wanted   to   withdraw   his   letter   dated  18.11.2014.   He again sent a letter stating that his grievance  was   not   resolved,   therefore,   his   earlier   letter   should   be  considered.

5. The   Commission   finds   that   the   appellant,   even   in   his   RTI  application, had just stated that he wanted to know the details  of   action   taken   on   his   written   complaints,   etc   without   giving  any dates as to which complaints were to be referred to.  During  the hearing, however, he finally stated that he was transferred  without his making any request and also no copy of his so called  request   dated   14.12.1996   was   given   to   him.     The   Commission,  therefore, directs the respondents to give a copy of his request  dated   14.12.1996,   duly   attested,   to   him   within   a   week   of   the  receipt of the order of the Commission.   The appellant appears  to be nurturing a grievance relating to his transfer. He may do  well to take it up at the appropriate forum.  He is also advised  to send complete documents along with RTI application in future.  The appeal is disposed of. 

(Manjula Prasher)  Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy: 

(T.K. Mohapatra)  Dy Secretary & Dy Registrar  Tele No. 011­26105027  Copy to : 
The Central Public Information Officer  Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional Office 69, Prabhat Nagar Meerut­250001 The First Appellate Authority  Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional Office 69, Prabhat Nagar Meerut­250001 Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta 94, Bagh Colony, Gali No. 02 Tibra Road, Modinagar Ghaziabad (UP)