Central Information Commission
Mrr K Kaushik vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 16 June, 2015
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001170 & 1283 (Two Same Cases)
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 16th June 2015
Date of decision : 16th June 2015
Name of the Appellant : Shri R K Kaushik,
Chief Manager (Retd.), Kaushik Niwas5,
Sunny Side, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, Pin
173212
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent UCO Bank,Zonal Office, Hotel Himland,
Circular Road, Shimla171001 The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Solan.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri B. G. Garg, Chief Manager and CPIO was present at the NIC Studio, Shimla.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal These files contain appeals in respect of the RTI application dated 22.11.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information regarding payment of his salary for the period November 2008 to October 2009. The CPIO of zonal office Shimla, to whom the RTI application was filed, responded on 23.12.2013 and informed the Appellant that he was relieved from duty from the zonal office Shimla on his transfer to zonal office, Jorhat on 23.10.2008 and that since he was not on the rolls of zonal office Shimla w.e.f. 24.10.2008, CIC/SH/A/2014/001170 & 1283 (Two Same Cases) no salary was payable to him from the Shimla office w.e.f. the above date. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, the Appellant filed second appeal dated 11.3.2014 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 19.3.2014.
2. The Respondents reiterated the reply given by the CPIO. The Appellant stated that the information sought by him has not been provided. He further submitted that he was transferred from the Shimla zonal office to the Jorhat zonal office, but did not proceed to join duty at the Jorhat zonal office. He alleged that the transfer order in question was malafide. Therefore, he filed a case in the High Court and eventually the bank had to cancel the said order. He also stated that he has undergone considerable mental harassment because the Respondents did not provide him the information concerning his salary.
3. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties before us. It is seen that the period, for which the Appellant has sought information regarding payment of his salary, was after his relief from the Shimla zonal office, when he did not join his next place of posting in Jorhat. This was followed by litigation with the bank. Therefore, it was not a simple case of denial of salary. The CPIO could have forwarded the Appellant's application to the concerned authorities to inform him about the stand of the bank regarding payment of his salary for the period in question. However, since, as stated above, it was not a simple matter of denial of salary, we would not go into the question of the CPIO having failed to do so. At the same time, we direct Shri B. G. Garg, Chief Manager and CPIO to inform the Appellant regarding the position concerning payment of his salary for the period in question. In case the information is available in some other office of the bank, it would be the responsibility of Shri B. G. Garg, CPIO to CIC/SH/A/2014/001170 & 1283 (Two Same Cases) get it from that office and pass it on to the Appellant. Shri B. G. Garg , CPIO should comply with our above directives within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
4. With the above directions and observations, the two appeals are disposed of.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SH/A/2014/001170 & 1283 (Two Same Cases)