Central Information Commission
Shri D. K. Shukla vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 16 February, 2010
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
Central Information Commission
*****
Case Nos. CIC/AT/C/2008/00522 &
CIC/AT/C/2009/000268
Dated: 16.2.2010
Complanant : Shri D. K. Shukla Respondents : Delhi Transport Corporation
In the second-appeal-cum-complaint filed by Shri D. K. Shukla against Delhi Transport Corporation, Commission issued the following directions vide Order No. CIC/AT/C/2008/00522 dated 6.1.2009:
"13. Complainant may file a fresh RTI-application before the appropriate CPIO about his outstanding Provident Fund claim as well as the interest payment due on the delayed payment of his pensionery benefits as well as Provident Fund. If he is not satisfied with the reply received, complainant shall be free to approach the Commission directly without coming through the Appellate Authority.
14. Since detriment has been caused to the complainant on account of the loss of key records about his pensionery and Provident Fund entitlements, notice may issue to the head of the public authority, viz. Chairman, DTC as to why a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs not be awarded to the complainant under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. Returnable in two weeks.
15. The head of the public authority, viz. the CMD, DTC is directed to institute an enquiry as to how the records as mentioned at item no.2 of the complainant's RTI-application have been lost and who were responsible for its loss. The report will be submitted to the Commission within six weeks of the receipt of this order."
2. In pursuance of para 13 of the above order, the complainant filed a fresh RTI request dated 31.12.2008 before the PIO of Delhi Transport Corporation seeking for the following information:
"Item 1(i): I have opted pension in the year 1992, and retired from the service of the DTC as a Manager (Mech.) w.e.f. 28.2.2006 (H.N.D.- 1st ), and the letter number to Dy. Manger (PF) HQ. from PID-1st /(Misc.)/96/608 dated 13.5.1996. The list provided by the Dy. Manger PID-1st, my name is enclosed at Serial No. 13 was opted for service pension by DTC. DTC started giving me service pension Shri D K Shukla V/s. DTC : Complaint Case Nos. C-8/522 & C-9/268 Page 1 of 6 from May-2008 but the total amount given to me Rs. 65,860/- was deducted from my service pension by Pension Cell Item 1(ii): Name the officer who had deducted the money and sent it to the R.P.F.C. In spite of I opted Service Pension Item 2(i): The interest of total money from March-2006 to April-2008 is not paid to me whereas in my 1st RTI application I asked for the interest. Item 2(ii): Name the officer who has not paid the interest in spite of CIC instructions Item 3(i): The actual deducted amount from Nov. 1995 to Feb., 2003, Rs. 31,475 had been transferred to the R.P.F.C. and the amount of 65,860/- has been calculated as a total amount with the interest on Rs. 31,475 upto April 2008 and now eight months have been passed more till 31.12.2008.
Item 3(ii) Name the person who will be accountable and interest upto releasing of amount on Rs. 65,860/-."
3. PIO through letter dated 30.1.2009 replied to the complainant as under:
"1(i & ii) A sum of Rs.65,860/- was retained from the arrear of pension as the said amount was remitted to RPFC out of his PF Employer share on account of EPS'95 during his service period from May, 1995 to 2003 . This amount includes Rs 31,475/- being principal amount and Rs 34,385/- being interest. As regards, the name of the officer who is responsible, it is submitted that Shri D.K. Shukla himself was responsible for this recovery. The amount on account of EPS'95 was depicted in his monthly pay slip form May 1995 to 2003 but Shri Shukla being literate/officer of the Corporation never pointed out for this recovery of EPS. Further, the list of Units which have made deductions towards EPS where Shri Shukla was posted during his service tenure from 1995 to 2003 may be had from PLD.
The deduction towards EPS-95 was made through salary of the employee/ officer in the unit where his salary was charged from Nov.,1995 to 2002.
2(I & ii) The reply has already been given by PF Section vide memo No. Act/PF/2009/37 dated 20.1.09. However, there is no provision of interest in CCS Pension rules on arrears of pension from March, 2006 to April, 2008. Hence no officer is responsible for payment of interest to him on this account.
The actual remitted amount to RPFC towards EPS_95 is Rs. 31475/- for the period from Nov., 95 up to 2002-03. The Pension Cell has requested the RPFC for refund of 65,860/- including interest vide Shri D K Shukla V/s. DTC : Complaint Case Nos. C-8/522 & C-9/268 Page 2 of 6 letter No. PC/GO-I/2008/1045 dated 23.12.2008. But no reply has been received so far from RPFC.
3(i & ii) The position has already been clarified in para 1(I & ii) above.
However, two letters have already been sent to RPFC for refund of the said amount. The copy of these letters have also been sent to Shri D.K Shukla with the request to follow up the matter with RPFC for getting his refund of Rs.65,860/-. On receipt of the amount form RPFC, the same will be refunded to the applicant.
"Certified that information being provided is complete, accurate and correct in all respects as per record."
4. Aggrieved by the reply of PIO, the complainant filed a complaint dated 9.2.2009 in the Commission. The complaint has been registered and the Case No. is CIC/AT/C/2009/0268.
5. Commission also received a reply dated 4.2.2009 from respondents to the show cause notice dt. 12.1.2009 issued u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. In their reply, respondents stated as follows:
i) The pension scheme was introduced in the DTC in 1995 and was effective from 3.8.1981. The options were invited from the employees vide circular dt. 27.11.1992 from the existing employees and the employees who had been retired w.e.f. 3.8.1981 to opt the Pension Scheme or the Employees Provident Fund within 30 days to the concerned unit. As per the circular, non-receipt of option or receipt of incomplete options etc., would be deemed to have opted the Pension scheme benefit.
ii) The option so received were kept in the personal files and the Concerned Units prepared the list of Pension Optees and copies of the list were forwarded to the Pension Cell. However, consequent upon shifting of Pension Cell at least 3 to 4 times, during the intervening period from 1992 to 2005, some part of the list might have been misplaced from the Pension Cell. Further, the custodian of these files had also been changed from time to time due to transfer /VRS / Retirement etc.
iii) The efforts were also made to reconstitute the record of Pension Cell on the basis of record available with the concerned units and the same was computerized. However, the list of employees who opted for pension was not available in some of the concerned units, including Personnel / PLD Branch. The PLD Branch deals with the establishment matters of staff posted at the Headquarters and of all the officers working in DTC. The PLD Branch has confirmed that the list of pension optees of officer category was misplaced.
iv) The complainant Shri D.K. Shukla, Manager(Mech.) retired from the service on 28.2.2006 and his pension case was sent by the Personnel Deptt.
to the Pension Cell, which noticed various discrepancies / irregularities:
Shri D K Shukla V/s. DTC : Complaint Case Nos. C-8/522 & C-9/268 Page 3 of 6a) As per service book of Shri D.K. Shukla, he had opted for pension; but he was regularly contributing towards EPS -95, from 1995 to 2003. Shri Shukla was getting monthly salary slips for these years; but he never objected to the deduction of EPS when he had already opted for pension.
b) As per record of Pension Cell, Shri Shukla was a non-optee.
c) When 2nd option was allowed in the year 2002 to those who had failed to opt for pension earlier, Shri Shukla opted for pension in 2002. Thus, when Shri Shukla had already opted for pension in 1992, why he again opted for pension in 2002, which generate doubts of his being an original pension optee.
d) The option forms or list of officers who opted for pension during the year 1992 were not traceable either in PLD or in Pension Cell / Accounts Branch.
v) Shri Shukla's pension case was referred to Personnel Deptt. for seeking clarification of above irregularities. Subsequently, the matter was placed before the DTC Employees Superannuation Pension Trust in its meeting held on 20.3.2008 and finally the pension was granted to Shri Shukla in the month of June, 2008.
vi) Thus, there was no malafide / intentional delay on the part of anyone in finalizing the pension case of Shri Shukla. Delay was caused due to some irregularities observed in his case and for which Shri Shukla was also responsible. Had he pointed out about his EPS'95 deductions at any stage during the long span of 84 months and would not have exercised his option during the year 2002, the doubts about genuinity of this case would not have arisen, which had resulted delay in finalization of his pension case.
6. Respondents therefore, requested that the show cause notice for compensation be dropped.
7. Respondents through letter dated 29.5.2009 also submitted an interim report of the enquiry conducted and stated that in compliance of Commission's order dt. 6.1.2009, the Vigilance Branch was asked to conduct an enquiry regarding the circumstances under which the Pension Option Form of Shri D.K. Shukla were misplaced and to fix the responsibility for the same. Consequent, upon enquiry made by Sr. I.O.(Vig.) and statement recorded of the officials from the PLD Branch, the concerned Daftary was found responsible being custodian of the records / file. However, he (Daftary) had since been retired. As the matter was serious, CMD ordered to fix up the responsibility at higher level. Accordingly, further investigation in the matter was under process and the final report would be submitted in due course.
Shri D K Shukla V/s. DTC : Complaint Case Nos. C-8/522 & C-9/268 Page 4 of 68. Subsequently, vide letter dt. 2.7.2009, respondents informed that further investigations were over and on the basis of final enquiry report, the CMD & head of the public authority has ordered as under:
i) Disciplinary proceedings for imposition of minor penalty be initiated against Shri B. K. Chopra, Jr. Clerk; and Shri Yogesh Chand, Sr. Clerk.
ii) Shri Ranbir Singh, Dy. Manager & the then AI/OS and Smt. Durgesh Nandni, Sr. Manager & the then Manager(PLD) be "Cautioned to be careful in future".
9. In pursuance of Commission's notice dated 4.5.2009, matter was heard on 7.7.2009, wherein Complainant Shri D.K Shukla was present. From the Respondents' side Dr. Aradhana Sr. Manager (Admin); Shri R.K Maini, LWI/RTI Sh. V.S Rathi, LWI/RTI, Shri R.N.Gupta, Sr. Manager; and Shri Subhash Chander Sharma, Legal Asstt. attended the hearing.
10. During the hearing, the complainant stated that there was delay of 2 years and 2 months in the payment of pension and when the payment was eventually made no interest was paid for the period of delay in paying terminal dues. He therefore, requested that he may be compensated suitably. He also stated that he would be submitting a statement showing loss of interest to him due to late receipt of the pension amount.
11. Accordingly, the complainant submitted his rejoinders on 10.7.2009. Subsequently, he submitted his supplementary rejoinders on 22.9.2009 and 5.10.2009 stating as under:
i) He was retired from the post of Manager (Mech.) w.e.f. 28.2.2006.
ii) No interest amount was paid on his PF amount of Rs. 5,38,821 for 26 months from 1.3.2006 to 30.4.2008;
iii) Despite his making payment of entire amount, along with interest, the DTC had deducted Rs. 65,860/- (against Rs. 31,475/-, the RPFC amount which was due) and only after the directions of the Commission, the DTC refunded this amount of Rs. 65,860/- through cheque dt. 4.3.2009.
iv) According to him, the interest amount @ 8.5% per annum comes to Rs. 1,09,990/-.
OBSERVATION & DECISION
12. The main appeal of the complainant was regarding non-payment of his pension and other entitlements. His additional request was for grant of interest on
i) delayed payment of pension arrear, and ii) Rs. 65,860/- recovered earlier from him and subsequently released on 4.3.2009. On perusal of documents, it has been observed that only after filing RTI-applications by the complainant and his Shri D K Shukla V/s. DTC : Complaint Case Nos. C-8/522 & C-9/268 Page 5 of 6 approaching the Commission in 2nd-appeal-cum-complaint, respondents released the pension to the complainant Shri D.K. Shukla and also refunded an amount of Rs. 65,860/- through cheque dt. 4.3.2009. According to the respondents, they had to search for records from 1992 onwards. The documents were not traceable due to shifting of offices and change of dealing officials / officers concerned on account of transfer / retirement etc. The public authority has also initiated disciplinary action against the officers responsible for the loss of such vital documents. According to respondents, the complainant Shri D.K. Shukla had been regularly contributing towards EPS-95 from 1995 to 2003 and he had been getting monthly salary slips for these years; but he never objected to the deduction of EPS when he had already opted for pension in 1992. Had the complaint followed his case properly and pointed out the irregularity, this situation would not have arisen. According to respondents, the complainant himself was also responsible to some extent for delay in payment of his pension. Ultimately, the public authority was able to bring the matter to a logical conclusion in favour of the complainant.
13. Now that the public authority has initiated action against the officials responsible for the loss of documents etc., I accept their explanation and drop the compensation proceeding.
14. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(A. N. TIWARI) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Shri D K Shukla V/s. DTC : Complaint Case Nos. C-8/522 & C-9/268 Page 6 of 6