Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sunil Kumar Velappan Nair vs State Bank Of Travancore on 12 November, 2018

                                 के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                            बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067



नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBOTV/A/2017/151607


Sunil Kumar Velappan Nair                                     ... अपीलकताग/Appellant


                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम


CPIO, State Bank of India,                                ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Head Office, Thiruvananthapuram


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : No Date               FA      : 26.03.2017           SA      : 26.05.2017

CPIO :    23.12.2016        FAO : 21.04.2017               Hearing : 17.10.2018


                                     ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India (formerly State Bank of Travancore), CPPC Branch, Trivandrum seeking information on six points pertaining to delay in payment of his pension, including, inter-alia, (i) when did the bank receive the Pension Payment Order (PPO) and Page 1 of 5 necessary documents, (ii) action initiated after receiving the PPO, and (iii) whether any delay occurred, if yes, from whose side.

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that against point no. 3 of his RTI application relating to delay in payment of pension the CPIO provided wrong information that there was no delay whereas Banking Ombudsman accepted that there was delay in payment of his pension and he was paid an amount of Rs.7061/- being the interest for delayed credit to his account. The appellant requested the Commission to take necessary action in the matter under the RTI Act.

Hearing:

3. The appellant Shri Sunil Kumar Velappan Nair and the respondent Shri K. M. Samad, AGM and CPIO, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Trivandrum attended the hearing through video conferencing.

4. The appellant submitted that in response to point no. 3 of the RTI application, he was informed that there is no delay in processing of the PPO. However, the Banking Ombudsman in response to a complaint filed by him had informed him vide letter dated 02.03.2017 that the bank has credited an amount of Rs. 7061/- being the interest for the delayed credit to his account. Therefore, as per the Banking Ombudsman, there was a delay in payment of his pension. Hence, the information furnished to him on point no. 3 of the RTI application is incorrect. In view of this, the appellant requested the Commission to take necessary action in the matter under the RTI Act.

5. The respondent stated that, as per the 'RBI Master Circular on Disbursement of Government Pension by Agency banks' dated 02.07.2018, "Pension paying banks have been advised to put in place a mechanism to obtain immediately the copies of pension orders from the pension paying authorities directly and make payments without waiting for receipt of instructions from the Reserve Bank so that pensioners should get benefits announced by the Governments in the succeeding month's pension payment itself." The respondent further stated that the appellant's PPO was received on 04.10.2016, and hence, as per the circular dated 02.07.2018, the pension become payable in November 2016. The respondent clarified that the appellant's pension commenced on 30.11.2016, hence, there was no delay. The respondent further submitted that the appellant had sought to know as to whether there was any delay in processing of PPO. In this context, as per the guidelines all agency banks have to put in place a mechanism to obtain immediately the copies of pension order from the Pension Sanctioning Authority directly. The respondent further stated that in the present case, the PPO was received on 04.10.2016. Thereafter the same was sent to the concerned Branch (Pangode Branch) with instructions to collect life certificate, non-employment certificate, letter of undertaking etc. Pension paying branch had also to carry out the necessary formalities, identify the pensioner with reference to photograph/information on the pensioner's portion of the PPO. These details were received by the CPPC from the branch on 26.10.2016. As 27.10.2016 was the date for processing of pension for the month of October 2016, the CPPC could not arrange to process the pension in the present case in the month of October 2016.

6. The respondent, however, stated that the appellant vide his RTI application has not sought to know about the delay in payment of the pension rather the delay in processing of the PPO. In this connection, as per the guidelines, no time limit has been fixed for processing of the PPO, the only stipulation being that the banks should have in place a mechanism to ensure that the pension commences in the succeeding month of the issue of the PPO Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that, as per the appellant, he had received the PPO on 30.09.2016 and, as per the postal record, the bank had received the PPO on 29.09.2016. In view of this, the appellant's pension should have been commenced by October 2016. Hence, there was a delay in starting the appellant's pension for which, perhaps, the bank had credited the amount of Rs. 7061/- being the interest for the delay in credit of the pension to the appellant's account. The Commission, however, notes that vide point no. 3 of the RTI application, the respondent had stated that there was no delay in processing of the PPO as all the details were received by the CPPC on 26.10.2016. In view of this, it cannot be said that the information furnished by the respondent is incorrect. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date: 08.11.2018 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:

1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India (Formerly State Bank of Travancore), Head Office, Poojapura, Thiruvananthapuram-695 012.

2. Shri Sunil Kumar Velappan Nair, Page 5 of 5