Central Information Commission
Mrsurendra Kumar Goyal vs Syndicate Bank on 23 July, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001008/SH
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001984/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 23rd July 2014
Date of decision : 23rd July 2014
Name of the Appellant : Shri Surendra Kumar Goyal,
Ward No. 10, Mohalla Atarpura, Town &
P O Gajraula, Distt Amroha, U P 244235
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Prathama Bank,
Head Office, Planning & Development
Department, Ram Ganga Vihar, Phase II,
Moradabad 244001 U P
The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Amroha.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri N. U. Khan, Chief Manager was present at the
NIC Studio, Moradabad.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001008/SH This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 29.10.2012 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on four points regarding various payments due to him. The CPIO responded on 29.11.2012. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 2.1.2013. In his order dated 2.2.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO's reply. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 11.6.2013.
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001984/SH
2. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 18.7.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information regarding action taken on four applications filed by him to the Respondents regarding payment of leave encashment. The CPIO responded on 16.8.2013. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 24.8.2013. In his order dated 24.9.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO's reply. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 15.10.2013.
3. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001008/SH
4. The Appellant stated that he was not given correct information in response to query No. 4 of his RTI application dated 29.10.2012 regarding payment of arrears of leave encashment. In the above context, we note that the CPIO had informed the Appellant that as per bank rules, he was not eligible for encashment of leave. The Respondents submitted that the above reply is correct. They further submitted that since the services of the Appellant were terminated, he is not entitled to the leave encashment facility. They also stated that the FAA, while disposing of the first appeal of the Appellant, had forwarded to him a copy of the relevant rules under which he was not entitled to encashment of leave. These rules are available on our records and the relevant rule reads as follows: "Encashment of privilege leave will not be allowed at the time of resignation/ termination of service in respect of officer / employee."
In view of the foregoing, the CPIO's reply cannot be said to be incorrect. The Appellant stated that he has a letter dated 10.5.2012 from some other authority of the bank, stating that he is entitled to the leave encashment facility. The Appellant is at liberty to pursue the matter concerning the above letter with the bank. In so far his RTI application dated 29.10.2012 is concerned, we see no ground to interfere with the response already given by the Respondents.
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001984/SH
5. The Appellant submitted that he has not been given information regarding the action taken on the four applications submitted by him to the Respondents regarding encashment of leave. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant was informed about and provided copies of the communications vide which his applications concerning leave encashment were responded to. The Appellant submitted that he was provided copies of communications from the bank regarding payments due to him in some areas other than leave encashment. In view of the foregoing, the CPIO is directed to forward to the Appellant copies of the communications from the bank, vide which his requests for encashment of leave were responded to. The CPIO is further directed to complete action on our above directive within twenty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
6. With the above directions and observations, the two appeals are disposed of.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar