Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

S. Sundararajan vs State Bank Of India on 26 September, 2025

                                      के ीय सूचना आयोग
                              Central Information Commission
                                   बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                               Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                 नई िद    ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं        ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2025/625800

 S. Sundararajan                                                  ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                          VERSUS
                                           बनाम
 CPIO:
 State Bank of India,                                        ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
 Mumbai

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 08.04.2025                FA       : 12.05.2025            SA     : 05.06.2025

 CPIO : 05.05.2025               FAO : 04.06.2025                 Hearing : 24.09.2025


Date of Decision: 25.09.2025
                                         CORAM:
                                   Hon'ble Commissioner
                                 _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                        ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.04.2025 seeking information on the following points:

1) Please inform me the relevant Regulation under SBIEPF Rule/Regulation 1955/2014 which do forfeit entire service on Resignation after 20 years of service. As per my knowledge, there is no such proviso.

a. If no such Regulation, please inform me the list of resigned employees after putting in service of 20 years who were denied pension, on account of resignation, with reasons.

2) Please inform me the relevant Regulation under SBIEPF 1955/2014 which bars payment of Pension on Resignation after 20 years of service. As per my knowledge, there is no such proviso.

a. If no such Regulation, please inform me list of resigned employees who were denied pension, on account of resignation.

3) Please inform me the relevant rule with xerox copies, authorizing payment of pension on resignation after 20 years of service, as per Handbook of Retiring Officials issued by the Deputy Managing Director vide page 60.

4) Please inform me the relevant rule with xerox copies, which states that Leave Encashment is payable only, if the official is entitled for pension, as per the above Handbook issued by Deputy Managing Director, SBI, as per page 60, Column 8 and page 62, Column 8.

a. If yes, please inform me the list of employees who were paid Leave encashment, but denied pension.

5) Please inform me with relevant copies of the sanction note/letter of pension to Shri Vijayakrishnan Seshadri, Chief Manager, Madras Circle, who has resigned after 30 years of service.

..., etc./ other related information

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.05.2025 and the same is reproduced as under:-

1: The information sought is not clear and specific and hence it is outside the purview of information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 2: No such information is available with this CPIO.

a. The information is not compiled/maintained in the ordinary course of business with the Public Authority. Collation and collection of the same may disproportionately divert the resources of the Bank hence denied u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act.

3: Please find Page No. 17 of State Bank of India: Employees' Pension Fund Regulations, 2014 and be guided by rule 22.

4: As per extant instructions of the Bank the following is applicable for payment of leave encashment at the time of voluntary retirement:

(i) In case of resignation (i.e. the official desires to leave Bank's service prior to his/her completion of 20 years of pensionable service in the Bank) from the Bank's service after complying with the rules/regulations governing resignation encashment of PL will be permissible to the extent of half such leave at his/her credit on the date of cessation of service, subject to maximum of 120 days.

(ii) In case of voluntary retirement as per proviso 4 of Rule 19(1) of SBI OSR where concerned retiree is eligible for pension the encashment of the balance of privilege leave shall be permitted to the extent of 100% of balance, subject to a maximum of 240 days.

5: The information sought by the mode of RTI request is third party personal information available with the Bank in its fiduciary capacity, disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. Hence, the information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.

Further, no larger public interest has been brought to the notice of CPIO, which shall justify the disclosure of the information so sought.

etc.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.05.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 04.06.2025 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 05.06.2025 and filed an early hearing application dated Page 3 of 5 31.07.2025, which was allowed on 13.08.2025 and hence the matter has been listed for hearing.

5. The appellant attended through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Shri Subhash Satpute attended the hearing through video/audio conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he is aggrieved on being denied pension upon alleged misrepresentation of the Pension Rule.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information held in the official records has been duly provided to the appellant in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. Responses which required drawing inference or eliciting personal opinion of the PIO have been denied since such information do not fall within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. There is no scope for redressal of grievances or resolution of disputes between parties, under the provisions of the RTI Act. In the given circumstances, since appropriate information in terms of provisions of the RTI Act has already been provided by the Respondent, there is no scope of further intervention in this case under the RTI Act. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as such.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 25.09..2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Page 4 of 5 Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO State Bank of India, DGM(P & PMD) & CPIO, Policy and Pensioners Management Department, Corporate Centre, 16th Floor State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai -400021

2. S. Sundararajan Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)