Central Information Commission
Ms.Sajda Khatoon vs Allahabad Bank on 14 June, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
TEL; 01126179548
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000686/03585
Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000686
Dated: 14.6.2013
Appellant: Ms. Sajda Khatoon,
C/o Jan Seva Clinic, Bakarganj,
Muharrampur, Post: Bankipur,
Distt. Patna800004)
Respondent: Public Information Officer,
Allahabad Bank,
Zonal Office, Budh Marg,
Patna800001
Date of Hearing: 14.6.2013
O R D E R
RTI application
1. The appellant, referring to her letter dated 20.12.2011, filed an RTI application with the PIO on 5.1.2012 seeking information about her pension from 7.12.2004 to 12/2011 and its revision at different points of time and on the basis of the 6th Pay Commission recommendations. The CPIO denied the information on 19.1.2012 stating that the RTI application was unclear and lacking in specificity.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 4.2.2012. The FAA directed the CPIO on 20.3.2012 to provide the statement of the pension due. The appellant approached the Commission on 26.6.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant was represented by her nephew who along with the respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to the RTI application of 5.1.2012 and stated that he is yet to be given any satisfactory information by the respondent. The appellant stated that he wanted information about the revision made in the family pension of his aunt in the light of the Sixth Pay Commission along with the updated pension account.
5. The respondent stated that no action could be taken on the appellant's letter because it was unclear and accordingly the CPIO had responded on 19.1.2012.
6. The appellant stated that what the respondent is stating is reflective of a casual approach of the public authority and utter negligence of duties under the RTI Act, because the FAA had given clear instructions to the CPIO for providing the information, but the CPIO was not only indifferent, but also contemptuous of his public duties to provide the information which the appellant sought.
7. The appellant stated that the respondent should be taken to task for this negligence. The appellant referred to the FAA's letter of 20.3.2012 and stated that the CPIO should explain why he did not comply with the orders of the FAA. The appellant stated that he kept on contacting the respondent and made him 3 or 4 telephone calls, but there was no response from the respondent.
Decision
8. The respondent is directed to:
(a) provide to the appellant the information sought in the RTI application of 5.1.2012 and as clarified by the FAA on 20.3.2012;
(b) show cause as to why action should not be taken against the respondent for contravening the timelines prescribed in the RTI application;
(c) comply with the above within 30 days of this order.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commission Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer