Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rajesh Sharma vs Punjab National Bank on 26 February, 2026

                              केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                               बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/648987


Rajesh Sharma                                         ......अपीलकताग /Appellant


                                 VERSUS
                                   बनाम


CPIO: Punjab National Bank                           ....प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Date of Hearing                         :    25.02.2026

Date of Decision                        :    25.02.2026

Information Commissioner                :   Shri Surendra Singh Meena


Relevant Facts emerging from appeal:


RTI application                         :    04.10.2024

PIO replied on                          :    19.10.2024

First Appeal filed on                   :    24.10.2024

First Appeal Order on                   :    28.10.2024

2nd Appeal received on                  :    01.11.2024



CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/648987                                               Page 1 of 4
 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.10.2024 seeking information on the following points:

"Sh. Babru Bhan Sharma, A Defense Pensioner Who Is Withdrawing Pension From PNB CPPC Chandigarh, Ex-Servicemen (Retired As Prob. I.E. Post Below Commissioned Officer Rank), Re-Employed In State Bank Of India W.E.F. 16.12.2010. (Pf No-5636469) Sh. Sharma Has Been Given The Benefit Of Last Pay Protection On Re-Employment Due To Which His Initial Basic Pay In Clerical Cadre Is Fixed At A Higher Stage And Also His Pay On Re-Employment Is Fixed Higher Than His Last Drawn Pay. In Terms Of Prevailing Instructions Of Government Of India, The Employee In Such Case Is Not Eligible To Draw Dearness Relief On Pension During The Period Of His Re-Employment.Sh. Sharma Is However Getting Dearness Relief On His Defence Pension Continuously W.E.F. 16.12.2010 Through Pension Disbursing Agency Ie. Pnb CPPC Chandigarh.

1) Whether The Pension Disbursing Agency PNB CPPC Chandigarh Is Aware About All These Facts. If Yes:

(A). Whether The Pension Disbursing Agency Pnb CPPC Chandigarh Has Confirmed About The Re-Employemt Of The Said Pensioner From His Current Employer I.E. State Bank Of India, Regional Business Office, Rajesh Pilot Chowk, Rewari (Haryana-123401). (B). Whether The Pension Disbursing Agency PNB CPPC Chandigarh Has Confirmed From His Current Employer That Whether The Pay Protection Benefit Has Been Given To The Said Pensioner While Fixing His Initial Basic Pay On Re-Employment In Clerical Cadre In State Bank Of India.

If Yes(A). The Reason Of Paying The Dearness Relief On Defence Pension To Sh. Sharma W.E.F. 16.12.2010 By Pension Disbursing Agency PNB CPPC Chandigarh In Violation Of Government Of India Instructions.

(B). Whether The Pension Disbursing Agency PNB CPPC Chandigarh Has Now Stopped The Dearness Relief On Pension Of Sh. Sharma. (C). Whether The Pension Disbursing Agency PNB CPPC Chandigarh Has Now Recovered The Wrongly Paid Overdrawn Dearness Relief To Sh. Sharma."

The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"1. We acknowledge the receipt of your RTI application undated received at our office on 04-10-2024. In this regard, we want to inform you that the information sought cannot be provided as it is related to third party and same is exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI act."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 24.10.2024 with same query as sought in his RTI application. The FAA vide order dated 28.10.2024 stated as under:-

"We acknowledge the receipt of your RTI appeal application dated 24-10- 2024 received at our office. In this regard, we want to inform you that the information sought cannot be provided as it is related to third party and same is exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI."

The Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground that information sought has been denied.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

The appellant remained absent.

The respondent Mr. Narender Singh, Chief Manager, was present through video conference.

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant has sought personal information of third party, hence denied u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

In the light of the above facts and perusal of the available record, the Commission noted that the respondent has given reply to the appellant vide letter dated 19.10.2024. No further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter, accordingly, the appeal is disposed.

Sd/-

(Surendra Singh Meena) (सुरेंद्र ससिंह मीना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 25.02.2026 Authenticated true copy Ramesh Babu Krishnan (रमेश बाबू कृष्णन) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:

1. Rajesh Sharma

2. The CPIO Punjab National Bank, 11-12, First Floor, New Grain Market, Rewari, Haryana-123401 CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/648987 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)