Raman Parameswaran Iyer vs Bank Of India on 9 May, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Raman Parameswaran Iyer vs Bank Of India on 9 May, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 23.10.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 06.06.2017 and first appeal dated 29.07.2017:

      (i)     Have you received my letter dt 12/04/2017?.
      (ii)    Please let me know the name and designation of the officials to whom my

letter has been marked and who are responsible for initiating action on the letter.

(iii) Have notings been made on my letter by the officials responsible for taking action on my letter? Or are notings / remarks / disposal instructions made in a separate memorandum?

Page 1 of 5

(iv) If the notings have been made on my letter itself, let me have a photocopy of the letter with the notings. If, however, the notings / remarks/ disposal instructions have been made on a separate memorandum, please let me have photocopies of all such memoranda. I repeat I need the photocopies. I am entitled to the same under RTI Act Sec (2)(1) and sec.(3).

(v) In my letter dt 12.04.2017 I have made a reference to a letter dated 04.01.1996 addressed by IBA to Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi. A photocopy of the said letter dt.04.01.1996 was attached to my letter dt 12.04.2017. As the IBA'S clarification dt04.01.1996 was meant for member banks like you, did you receive a copy of the letter of IBA?

(vi) If yes, what action was taken by the Bank on the letter of IBA?

Please let me have photocopies I repeat, photocopies of notings made on IBA'S letter or on separate memoranda / related correspondence you have had till date in connection with IBA'S clarification dt04.01.1996.

(vii) You may have observed from my letter dt 12.04.2017 that I had voluntarily resigned from Bank's service on 15.04.1994, that is, during the period when the Pension Scheme was under process of implementation. Subsequently when the Pension Scheme came into effect, it was given retrospective effect from 01.11.1993, that is, while I was in the service of the Bank with much more than the qualifying service of 20 years. Hence in terms of IBA'S letterdt04.01.1996 you ought to have addressed letters to those qualifying employees who had voluntarily resigned between 01.11.1993 (the retrospective date for eligibility for Pension Scheme) and 04.01.1996 (the date IBA had given clarification) giving them option to join the Pension Scheme. Let me, in this connection, have the following information which ought to be on your records.

(vi) (1)To how many such eligible employees did you inform re: their eligibility for Pension Scheme, in terms of IBA's clarification?

(vi) (2)Did you send me such a letter informing me of my eligibility for Pension?

Page 2 of 5

(vi) (3) If not, why was such an offer not made to me when I was eligible for opting for Pension Scheme?

(vi) (4) If, however, you had sent me such a letter informing me of myeligibility foropting for Pension Scheme please let me have photocopy of such letter.

(vi) (5)As per Bank's Guidelines /Manuals of Instruction/ Circulars what is the Record Retention period for personnel matters relating to Pension Scheme? Are you aware that in matters involving survival of a person, the 20 years' time frame given under RTI Act, Sec.(8)(3) does not apply as per judgements pronounced in RTI cases?

(vi) (6)From how many such employees you have received applications opting for Pension Scheme? Out of such cases how many applications did you reject? And for what reasons?

(vi) (7) Should you plead that no records are available in connection with Pension Scheme of 1993 to, say,upto 2003, why should you not give me the benefit of your doubt and extend Pension Scheme in my case? If, for any reason, you reject my request, involving my survival I shall appeal to Central Information Commission requesting it to consider my claim with-in 48 hours of receipt of my appeal as per recent guidelines of RTI Commission on matters involving Pension.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 06.06.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Kural, Mumbai seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 11.07.2017. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 29.07.2017. The First Appellate Authority(FAA) disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 18.08.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 23.10.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 23.10.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO as well as the FAA provided incorrect information. He requested the Page 3 of 5 Commission to direct to restore his right to pension, to direct CPIO to pay him compensation, and impose exemplary penalties on CPIO and FAA.

4. The CPIO replied that the letter referred to in point no. 1 of the RTI application was not received by them. Further, information relating to point no. 6 are more than 20 years old and are not available with them. The FAA provided information on point no. 4 and 5 of the RTI application.

5. The appellant and respondent represented by Mr. A. Shashikumar, AGM, attended the hearing through video conferencing.

4.1. The appellant submitted that the Bank had not properly intimated about the implementation of the 1993 pension Scheme to the employees. It was an assertion that the scheme is uniformly applicable to all the employees who were on the Bank's muster roll between 01.11.1993 (the retrospective date of eligibility of Pension option) and 28.09.1995 (the date of adoption of the Scheme). He having resigned on 15.04.1994, while on the muster roll of Bank's Andheri West Br., thus automatically qualify for the Pension Option. The fact, however, is that there was no such blanket inclusion of all the employees for Pension option, as on 01.11 .1993. Instead, each Branch/office was instructed to submit to HO as on 28.09.1995 (the date of adoption of the Scheme), a list of employees on their muster roll containing, under their signature, their willingness or otherwise for Pension option. As my name, as on 28.09.1995, was not on the muster roll of Andheri West Branch, the onus of providing individual information shifts to Head Office. However, as the Scheme indicated that Pension eligibility was only for retirees there was no need for Head Office to communicate to him a resignee. But the IBA (Indian Banks Association) clarification dated 04.01.1996 to treat resignees between 01.11.1993 and 28.09.1995 as 'retirees' should have alerted the Bank.

5.2. The respondent submitted that they had replied on 11.07.2017 and 29.07.2017. The FAA had given additional information stating that as per Joint Note signed on 29.10.1993 between IBA and AIBOC (All India Bank Officers Confederation) pension scheme which was introduced in Bank from 01.11.1993 was not applicable to those who had resigned from service.

Page 4 of 5

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that the appellant has expressed grave concerns regarding non-applicability of 1993 scheme and deficiency on the part of the bank to intimate the employees. The respondent has replied to the appellant vide letters dated 11.07.2017 and 29.07.2017. The appellant has sought redressal of grievance and this Commission may not be appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. The Commission finds that the reply given by the respondent is reasonable. With the aforementioned observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner(सू दनांक/ Date: 09.05.2019 Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission