Mallikarjun vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 13 October, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mallikarjun vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 13 October, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 13.05.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 01.04.2019 and first appeal dated 15.04.2019:-

(i) Appellant did not find his name in eligible pension list as per SLPC/39288/2012 order dated 25.04.2018 and so far he had not receive3d acknowledgement of my pension claim. Please inform him very reason for not including his name and forward acknowledgement.

(ii) Since retirement he was ailing from Paralysis and Disabled and spending Rs. 6000/-

p.m for tablets, injections and Doctor consulting fee. Is there any provision for reimbursement from bank.

Page 1 of 4

(iii) In how many days you will include his name in eligible pension list and realize eligible pension.

(iv) Name and designation of the Officer looking the pension payment to retirees.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 01.04.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Karnataka Gramin Bank, Ballari, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 03.05.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 15.04.2019 The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 06.05.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 13.05.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 13.05.2019 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 dated 03.05.2019 and the same is reproducedas under:

"i. Eligibility of pension will be determined as per Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 2018 published in extraordinary gazette of India Notification No 505 PART III Section 4 dated 18. 12 .2018 Bank has received your option letter for pension.

ii. There are no such guidelines at present iii. same as point no. I"

iv. The bank holds the information in a fiduciary capacity and exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005."

The FAA vide order dated 06.05.2019 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri D. Shankar Narayana, Chief Manager & CPIO, Karnataka Gramin Bank, Ballari, attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 2 of 4

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the requisite information had not been provided by the respondent so far. The appellant further submitted that the his pension was not sanctioned in spite of several reminders and the RTI application.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case and while endorsing their reply dated 06.05.2019 inter alia submitted that the information was held by them in fiduciary capacity and that the information was exempted under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. However, the information disclosable was furnished to the appellant. The respondent further stated that complete amount of his pension was not sanctioned due to non-refund of Management's portion of Provident Fund.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the respondent was evasive and incomplete. Further, the reasons/submissions regarding non-payment of pension were not reflected in their written reply dated 03.05.2019. The appellant had sought information regarding payment of pension to him as he was disabled and was a former employee of the respondent bank. Therefore, the exemption invoked by the respondent under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act was not sustainable in the eyes of law. In view of the above, Shri D. Shankara Narayana, present CPIO and Shri P Parthalingaiah, the then CPIO, are show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the requisite information. The present CPIO is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon the then CPIO and secure his written explanations as well as his attendance on the next date of hearing. All written submissions may be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed that suitable revised reply/information be made available to the appellant and a copy of the same be uploaded on the Commission's web portal.

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

Sd/-

                                                                                    सुरेश चं ा)
                                                                 (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                                 सूचना आयु )
                                                      Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                       दनांक/Date: 11.10.2021
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )

                                                                                     Page 3 of 4
 Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)
Addresses of the parties:
CPIO : KARNATAKA GRAMIN BANK
HEAD OFFICE, 32, SANGANAKAL ROAD,
GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI, KARNATAKA


THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
KARNATAKA GRAMIN BANK HEAD
OFFICE, 32, SANGANAKAL ROAD,
GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI, KARNATAKA


SH. MALLIKARJUN




                                    Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission