Central Information Commission
Shilwant K Chaudhari vs Reserve Bank Of India on 11 March, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2022/154949
Shilwant K Chaudhari ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Reserve Bank of India
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 30.06.2022 FA : 08.09.2022 SA : 16.11.2022
CPIO : 29.07.2022 FAO : 13.10.2022 Hearing : 05.03.2024
Date of Decision: 08.03.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.06.2022 seeking information on the following points:
a. "I request you to provide me the center wise information on no of applications received from pension opted for extension of time beyond due date i.e 14.12.2020 for payment of bank contribution etc under the pension option scheme and considered by the bank with their names, category and office noting.
b. Centre wise office noting on application made by pension opted for extensions of payment beyond due date i. e. 14.12.2020 for payment of bank contribution Page 1 of 7 etc under the scheme and received by the bank along with their name, category and office nothing on their application if any.
c. I request you to give us the inspection of record of payments made by pension opted after due date."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.07.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Para No. (a) and (c):- "None of the application received from pension optees for extension of time beyond due date for payment of bank contribution etc under the pension option scheme was considered by HRMD CO"
Para No. (b):- "One application made by pension optee for extension of payment beyond due date for payment of bank contribution etc under the scheme was rejected by HRMD, CO Name - Sh. Shilwant K Chaudhari Category - Class - I Office noting enclosed after severing the personal information which is exempted under section 8(1) (j) as per section 10 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. No retired employee was allowed to refund Bank's contribution after last date stipulated in circular dated 18.09.2020.
The applicant was informed over call accordingly."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.09.2022. The FAA vide order dated 13.10.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.11.2022
5. The Appellant was present and assisted by Vitthal Satpute during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Prashant Ketkar, Manager Page 2 of 7 (HR) & Rep. of CPIO; Rose Saprocho, Legal Officer along with Nelson P B, Assistant Manager attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Appellant submitted that the reply provided by the CPIO is false and misleading in the context of the contentions made in his written submissions filed prior to the hearing stating as under:
"..Pension and Salary records are permanent in nature and are kept till the employee is alive and destroyed only after 2 years of the employees death. Further the last date of submission of pension form and cheque was 14/12/2020 and all the correspondence have to be preserved for 5 years. If the bank have destroyed the papers let them show and produce the destruction records.
..the bank should be asked to submit the documents which were submitted by the pensioner's at the time of payment of CPF contribution in the Reserve Bank counters. Cash clerk on cash counters puts the date stamp on each payment made on cash counter/cheque counter including CPF contribution by pensioner's.
..Kindly ask the bank to give us the inspection of the papers filed by cash clerk on bank cash counters by pensioner optees whose forms and cheques were accepted by the Bank."
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and emphasized on the following submissions made in writing-
"...that the Appellant has contended that the plea taken by the Bank/CPIO in rejecting the inspection of records on the ground that there was no application for extension beyond the due date by the pension optees, as misleading. The appellant has sought further documentary evidences on cpf contribution and interest amount to be payable by pension optee; the rules, regulations/acts, manuals under which the payment details were provided to him.
It is humbly submitted that the prayer made by the appellant/applicant in the second appeal is different from his original RTI application. In this connection, it is Page 3 of 7 informed that as per the records available with Bank, no request for extension of time for payment of Bank's contribution and interests received from employees/retirees, who have submitted application to switch over to Pension scheme, in terms of Administrative Circular No. 1 dated 14.09.2020 and Circular CO.HRMD.NO. 1807/21.01.00/2020-21 dated 18.09.2020 (the coples of the circular have already been shared with the applicant), were acceded to. The details of amount refunded by the CPF optee retirees for switching over to pension scheme in terms of both the above circulars are spread across various offices, since the cases were processed by different regional offices of the Bank from where the employees had retired. As such, the disclosure of the information is exempted as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. Further, in the second appeal, the appellant has raised fresh queries like the documentary evidences on cpf contribution and interest amount to be payable by pension optee; the rules, regulations/acts, manuals under which the payment details were provided to him etc. In this regard, it may be informed that the appellant cannot raise fresh/additional query which is not part of his original RTI application at the appellate stage...."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the concededly the Appellant has overstretched his request for information at the Second Appeal stage. It is also pertinent to note that the Appellant is challenging the merits of the information provided to him and is primarily harping on redressal of a grievance, which is not the mandate of RTI Act. In the facts of the instant case, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) Page 4 of 7 The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
9. Similarly, the Appellant is insisting on information related to other pensioners to be provided to him, which in addition to being a request for voluminous information is also not permissible to be disclosed in view of the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Here, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
Page 5 of 7"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
10. As regards the submission of the CPIO urging that the records sought for by the Appellant are spread across different regional offices and ought to be collated, the Appellant shall note that the Apex Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] has observed that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive Page 6 of 7 getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information....The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
11. Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter. The Appellant is advised to pursue his grievance before the appropriate forum.
12. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 08.03.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, RTI Cell,
Reserve Bank of India
Central Office, 21st Floor,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Fort, Mumbai - 400001
2. Shilwant K Chaudhari
Page 7 of 7