Adarsh Kumari vs Punjab National Bank on 3 January, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Adarsh Kumari vs Punjab National Bank on 3 January, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 26.02.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through her RTI application dated 31.10.2017 and first appeal dated 06.12.2017:

Page 1 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 31.10.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 05.12.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 06.12.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 21.12.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 26.02.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 26.02.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 05.12.2017 gave a point-wise reply to the RTI application. The FAA vide his order dated 21.12.2017 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

Page 2 of 4

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Ranjit Singh, Chief Manager and Shri Gaurav Shekhar, Sr. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Delhi attended the hearing in person. 5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that her salary fitment was not made according to the rules/guidelines/circular of the bank. She further requested the Commission to direct the respondent to enquire into the matter and resolve the issue 5.2. The respondent inter alia submitted that they had already provided information to the appellant vide letter dated 05.12.2017. The respondent further submitted that the appellant was drawing proper pension and there was no infirmity in this. They argued that the appellant's apprehension about improper fitment of her salary was baseless and not sustainable.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that due reply has already been provided by the respondent vide letter dated 05.12.2017. The queries raised by the appellant were also properly answered by the respondent during the hearing. Further, if the appellant has any grievance with regard to non-fitment of her salary may be raised before an appropriate forum. This forum may not act as grievance redressal forum. The Commission feels that interest of justice would be served if the appeal is dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner(सू दनांक/ Date: 02.01.2020 Authenticated true copy (R. Sitarama Murthy) (आर. सीताराम मू त) Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Head Office(MARD), 2nd Floor, East Block, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110008 THE F.A.A, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, Head Office(MARD), 2nd Floor, East Block, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110008 ADARSH KUMARI Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission