Harihar Prasad Sinha vs State Bank Of India on 22 December, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Harihar Prasad Sinha vs State Bank Of India on 22 December, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 27.11.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 11.07.2018 and first appeal dated 31.08.2018:-

i. Whether payment of special conveyance allowance in addition to reimbursement of charges are being paid to physically handicapped employee/ officials. ii. Payment of such special allowance has not been paid to me from Dec 2008 to Aug 2014 causes thereof.

Page 1 of 4

iii. Thereafter arbitrarily allowance has been paid denying payment of arrears for intervening period as mentioned above. Causes of denial please. iv. Whether he was treated as normal person by bank/paying authority for the period allowances not paid despite having 50% permanent disability. v. Why not any remedial action had been initiated for arrears payment despite request/ representation made by me.

vi. Whether bank still has views to clear his legitimate demand for payment of arrears for the period from Dec 2008 to Aug 2014 i. e. for 69 months.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 11.07.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Patna, Bihar, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 09.08.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 31.08.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of first appeal vide its order dated 25.09.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 27.11.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 27.11.2018 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory and that despite the records being held at centralized salary payment system (HRMS) of the bank, the respondent demanded his previous representation; and that the information provided by them was incorrect and misleading. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and reasons behind non-payment of arrears due to be paid to him.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 09.08.2018 replied that only those employees under Physically Handicapped category submitting their PH certificate with HRMS department were given benefits; that the appellant was requested to submit copy of his Page 2 of 4 representation claiming benefits under 2014 benefit scheme. The FAA vide his order dated 25.09.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Shailesh Kumar, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, State Bank of India, Patna attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that information provided by the respondent was incomplete and they had demanded copy of application and representation from him. The appellant further submitted that he was appointed on 25.06.1980 and that he belonged to Physically Handicapped (PH) category. The appellant stated that his PH benefits were discontinued after 2008. Therefore, he had claimed for arrears for the period between November 2008 to September 2014.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant has been given the allowances for PH category after 2014 upon submission of his PH certificate. However, the appellant had not submitted his certificate for the earlier period. Therefore, the allowances were not paid 2008 onwards.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records notes that, the reply given by the respondent is incomplete and evasive. Further, the respondent have provided generic reply vide their letter dated 09.08.2018 and have not provided specific information/reasons for deferring the allowances with respect to appellant despite a period of over two years having elapsed. In view of the lackadaisical approach of the CPIO and the delay caused, Shri Shailesh Kumar, present CPIO as well as Anil Kumar Pandey, the then CPIO, are directed to show cause as to why a penalty under provisions of section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing complete information. The First Appellate Authority is also directed to conduct inquiry and submit a report specially bringing out the following facts :

i) the date of appointment as to whether the appointment was against the disability quota;

Page 3 of 4

ii) as to whether the disability was prior to 2014;

iii) as to whether the disability benefit was being given upto 2008 and the reasons why it was discontinued thereafter; and

iv) any other relevant finding/point to bring out the truth.

6.1. Shri Shailesh Kumar, CPIO, is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon Shri Anil Kumar Pandey and secure his written explanations as well as ensure his attendance on the next date of hearing. All written submissions must be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days.

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

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) िदनां क/Date: 21.12.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

STATE BANK OF INDIA PREMISES & ESTATE DEPTT., LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA, BIHAR - 800 001 THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-1), STATE BANK OF INDIA PREMISES & ESTATE DEPTT., LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA, BIHAR - 800 001 Harihar Prasad Sinha Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission