Central Information Commission
Mr.Lakshman Jee Gupta vs Insurance Division on 26 April, 2012
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 websitecic.gov.in
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001497
Appellant /Complainant : Shri Lakshman Jee Gupta, Buxar (Bihar)
Public Authority : LIC of India, Nashik
(Ms Surekha Nadkarni, CPIO & Sh. R.N. Chauhan,
Mgr. - through videoconferencing)
Date of Hearing : 26 April 2012
Date of Decision : 26 April 2012
Facts:
1. Appellant submitted RTI application dated 4 November 2010 before the CPIO, LIC of India, Nashik to obtain information pertaining to the amounts due on account of pensionary benefits to him from the organisation, rules pertaining to the payment of interest to him for the delay in release of this amount, rules if any, governing the payment of compensation to him for the mental torture caused to him on account of this inordinate delay in release of the amounts due to him and the names of the officials who had caused this delay. In his RTI application, the appellant has also provided the background in which he seeking this information.
2. Vide CPIO order dated 22 December 2010, disclosure of information was denied on the grounds that it did not fall under the definition as prescribed under section 2 (f) of the Act.
3. Appellant preferred appeal dated 23 December 2010 before the first appellate authority which was disposed of vide FAA order dated 31 January 2011 in which part information was provided and appellant was informed that he had been paid the amounts due to him vide cheque dated 14 September 2009. Information pertaining to his eligibility to receive interest on the late payment/compensation for harassment on Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001497 account of this delay was not provided and nor were the names of the officers who were responsible for this delay.
4. Appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission. Matter was heard today via videoconferencing. Respondent was heard from Nashik and appellant made submissions from Kanpur.
5. Respondent stated that he had taken voluntary retirement from the Corporation with effect from 1 March 2005 after having served in the organization for over eight years as an assistant and as AAO (direct recruit 22nd batch). Also that he had paid the Corporation and amount of Rs. 1.50 lakh as per the bond conditions for taking pre mature retirement and that in spite of numerous reminders the amounts due to him, were not released thereby causing him great financial strain and mental harassment. Respondent stated that the files pertaining to the service/leave etc. of the appellant was held by their Buxar office and in spite of of several reminders, had not provided the same to the Nashik office on the grounds that the files were not traceable. Respondent also stated that part of the delay in releasing the amounts due to the appellant was on account of his not furnishing a prereceipt to the Corporation ( a mandatory requirement).
Decision notice
6. After hearing both parties, Commission is of the view that this matter requires further investigation. Therefore in exercise of the powers and functions of the Commission as laid down in section 18 (1) (b) (e) and section 18 (2) of the Act, Commission directs CPIO to furnish to the Commission an affidavit clearly showing the name and designation of the various functionaries at Nashik and Buxar who handled this matter along with list of communications with the dates exchanged between them and any other Department of the Corporation and with the appellant also showing the subject matter of these communications within four weeks of receipt of the order, with copy to the appellant. The information so submitted must not be in running form but in a clear list so that the Commission can easily ascertain the true facts in the matter. Concerned are aware that as per directions of the Central Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001497 government, the pensionary benefits are required to be given to the retiring officer on the date of his retirement while holding back only a small amount till the time that no dues certificate from other departments is obtained. In this case, the appellant has discharged his obligation placed on him under the bond that he signed with the Corporation prior to being released. However the Corporation appears not to have fulfilled their part of the obligation i.e., to release the balance amounts due to the appellant even after the passage of over four years.
7. Affidavit as above to be furnished to the Commission within four weeks of receipt of the order. CPIO has submitted that she would be retiring on 30 April 2012. Therefore the onus of complying with the above directions of the Commission are placed on her successor CPIO. Both parties will appear before the Commission for further hearing on 19.06.2012 at 12.00 PM at NIC Computer Centre, Collectorate Office, Nashik422002 (Maharashtra), Contact Officer : Mr. Rajesh Salve, ScientistD and Contact No. 02532311460. CPIO may also bring with him any other officer/official who has handled this case and who would be able to assist the Commission in arriving at the correct conclusions.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Tel. No. 01126105027 Copy to:
1. Shri Lakshman Jee Gupta S/o Late Shiva Narayan Prasad C/o Raj Pustak Bhandar Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001497 Ward No. 5, Nai Bazaar, Buxar802101 (Bihar)
2. The CPIO Manager LIC of India, Jeevan Prakash, Gadkari Chowk Golf Club Ground, Old Agra Road Nashik2 (Maharashtra)
3. The Appellate Authority Sr. Divisional Manager LIC of India, Jeevan Prakash, Gadkari Chowk Golf Club Ground, Old Agra Road Nashik2 (Maharashtra) Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001497