Vimla S. Gosai vs Canara Bank on 19 March, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Vimla S. Gosai vs Canara Bank on 19 March, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 18.01.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 21.05.2018 and first appeal dated 30.06.2018:-

i. Copy of PF statement for the period from 01.04.2011 to 27.05.2012 of her late husband Shivmohan S. Gosai who was last working as Head-Clerk at Bank's Raopura Vadodara Branch at the time of his death on 27.05.2012 indicating there in the name of nominee and other details. His PF code was staff 50413 and he joined the Bank's service on 01.03.1978.

Page 1 of 5

ii. Copy of the application made by her of her late husband Shivmohan S. Gosai giving name of nominee for his PF and gratuity dues in case of his death in the standard format of the Bank after 09.05.2004.

iii. In case the nomination for PF account was not made correctly by his late husband, the details of action taken by the Bank during the whole eight years when he was alive and working in the Bank. Copy of correspondence exchanged with him may please be furnished.

iv. Copy of letter if any written by any other heirs objecting nomination made by his late husband and the copy of the note accepting such objection by the Bank despite valid nomination made by my late husband in his favour. v. Copy of the court/judicial order if any restricting release of PF to her as a sole nominee.

vi. The reason for not releasing balance gratuity amount despite the acceptance of validity of nomination in her favour by the bank.

vii. Copy of legal opinion if any obtained by the Bank deciding to reject her claim papers for all retirement dues viz. PF, Gratuity, ex-gratia lump sum amount, death relief amount, leave encashment etc. of her late husband despite having made nomination in her favour for all such dues and when the Bank has accepted her as only legal heir for all such dues.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 21.05.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Canara Bank, J.C. Road, Bengaluru, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 18.06.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 30.06.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the first appeal vide its order dated 08.08.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 18.01.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

Page 2 of 5

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 18.01.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory; that she did not have any financial support to hire professional help to file representational and that she was a childless widow in need of the information. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 18.06.2018 provided point-wise information along with copy of PF statement for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, etc. The FAA vide his order dated 08.08.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant represented through counsel and on behalf of the respondent Shri Hari P V, CPIO, Canara Bank, Bengaluru, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information provided by the respondent was incorrect and misleading. The respondent replied that the nomination for PF was in the name of Gautam Gosain whereas the PF statement since 2004 revealed the name of Smt. Vimla Gosain. The appellant contended that the respondent had changed the PF nomination without the appellant's consent or her authorization. There had been irregularities on their part in the nomination filing process; hence, the nomination revision was wrongly done by the bank officials.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought information regarding PF and gratuity of her husband Late Shri S.S. Gosain and detailed information was made available to her. The appellant was provided with copy of PF statement for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 wherein the name of the nominee for PF was Gautam Gosain and nominee for gratuity was Smt. Vimla Gosain. The appellant was also provided with copy of application for nomination filed on 27.06.2011 made in HRMS and that the nomination registered on 31.03.1992 in favour of Mr. Gautam Gosain held good. The copy of application for gratuity nomination dated 19.06.2004 was provided to the appellant.

Further, no correspondence was made in respect of PF and the PF nomination though Page 3 of 5 submitted by appellant's husband through HRMS on 27.06.2011 was not witnessed as per procedure. The respondent further stated that no court or judicial order was available with them and the gratuity cheque no. 13127 for Rs. 6,94,740/- had been credited to the account of Smt. Vimala Gosain on 08.10.2012 as per gratuity settlement and that differential gratuity was not applicable as 10th BPS was effective from 01.11.2012 whereas their employee expired on 27.05.2012. The respondent submitted that gratuity was already settled in favour of the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given vide CPIO's letter dated 18.06.2018. The appellant contended during the hearing that the nomination for PF was incorrectly mentioned by the respondent and that the PF statements revealed the name of the appellant. However, the respondent refuted the same and furnished copy of the PF nomination filed by Gautam Gosain, son of Late Shri S.S. Gosain. It may not be out of place to mention that the public authorities were under an obligation to provide information as available in their records in material form. The grievance regarding revision of nomination or payment of PF may not be redressed before this forum. The appellant may contest the nomination and claim the PF amount before appropriate forum. Therefore, the information being made available to the appellant, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

                                                                                सुरेश चं ा)
                                                             (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                             सूचना आयु )
                                                  Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                   दनांक/Date: 19.03.2021
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)


                                                                                  Page 4 of 5
 Addresses of the parties:
CPIO :
1. CANARA BANK
HEAD OFFICE ANNEXE, RIA
SECTION, JEEVAN PRAKASH
BUILDING, 113-1, J.C. ROAD,
BANGALURU - 560 002

THE F.A.A, CANARA BANK,
HEAD OFFICE ANNEXE,
RIA SECTION,
JEEVAN PRAKASH BUILDING,
113-1, J.C. ROAD,
BANGALURU - 560 002

VIMLA S. GOSAI




                              Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission