Harihar Prasad Sinha vs State Bank Of India on 9 April, 2021

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Harihar Prasad Sinha vs State Bank Of India on 9 April, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 27.11.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 11.07.2018 and first appeal dated 31.08.2018:-

i. Whether payment of special conveyance allowance in addition to reimbursement of charges are being paid to physically handicapped employee/ officials. ii. Payment of such special allowance has not been paid to the appellant from December 2008 to August 2014 causes thereof.

iii. Thereafter arbitrarily allowance has been paid denying payment of arrears for intervening period as mentioned above. Causes of denial please.

Page 1 of 6

iv. Whether he was treated as normal person by bank/paying authority for the period allowances not paid despite having 50% permanent disability. v. Why not any remedial action had been initiated for arrears payment despite request/ representation made by the appellant.

vi. Whether bank still has views to clear his legitimate demand for payment of arrears for the period from December 2008 to August 2014 i. e. for 69 months.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 11.07.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Patna, Bihar, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 09.08.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 31.08.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of first appeal vide its order dated 25.09.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 27.11.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 27.11.2018 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory and that despite the records being held at centralized salary payment system (HRMS) of the bank, the respondent demanded his previous representation; and that the information provided by them was incorrect and misleading. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and reasons behind non-payment of arrears due to be paid to him.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 09.08.2018 replied that only those employees under Physically Handicapped category submitting their PH certificate with HRMS department were given benefits; that the appellant was requested to submit copy of his representation claiming benefits under 2014 benefit scheme. The FAA vide his order dated 25.09.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

Interim order dated 13.11.2020 4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Shailesh Kumar, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, State Bank of India, Patna attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 2 of 6

Interim order dated 21.12.2020 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 21.12.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records notes that, the reply given by the respondent is incomplete and evasive. Further, the respondent have provided generic reply vide their letter dated 09.08.2018 and have not provided specific information/reasons for deferring the allowances with respect to appellant despite a period of over two years having elapsed. In view of the lackadaisical approach of the CPIO and the delay caused, Shri Shailesh Kumar, present CPIO as well as Anil Kumar Pandey, the then CPIO, are directed to show cause as to why a penalty under provisions of section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing complete information. The First Appellate Authority is also directed to conduct inquiry and submit a report specially bringing out the following facts:

i) the date of appointment as to whether the appointment was against the disability quota;

       ii)      as to whether the disability was prior to 2014;
       iii)     as to whether the disability benefit was being given up to 2008 and the reasons
                why it was discontinued thereafter; and
       iv)      any other relevant finding/point to bring out the truth.

6.1. Shri Shailesh Kumar, CPIO, is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon Shri Anil Kumar Pandey and secure his written explanations as well as ensure his attendance on the next date of hearing. All written submissions must be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days."

Hearing on 06.04.2021

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Amit Kmar Mishra, Chief Manager (Law), Shri Shailesh Kumar, CPIO, State Bank of India, Patna attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 3 of 6

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was appointed on 25.06.1980 and that he belonged to Physically Handicapped (PH) category. He further submitted that his PH benefits were discontinued after 2008 without giving any reasons. Therefore, he had claimed for arrears for the period between November 2008 to September 2014. He further contended that despite show cause notice proper information was not provided by the respondent.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the applicant was posted at various branches during the period 01.12.2008 to 31.08.2014, as Branch Manager and during the relevant period the salary certification/ approval for payment of the officers/staffs posted at the Branch was to be done only by him as the Branch Manager with responsibility that the same was being paid at correct rate. However, the appellant had not submitted any representation in this regard during his service. They further submitted that in the absence of the representations, the matter could not be referred to the concerned department for determining his entitlement to the special conveyance allowance. Besides, it was further submitted that for payment of conveyance allowance, after the introduction of the Human Resource Management System (HRMS) in the year 2010, the Officers were required to upload the 'Disability Certificate i.e. the recommendation of the Head of Orthopedic Department of a Government Civil Hospital and the payment used to be processed in HRMS with the salary every month. The Disability certificate was not uploaded in the HRMS by the applicant in 2010. Accordingly, the appellant did not get special conveyance allowance and the same was started only after submitting the disability certificate in 2014 onwards.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records observes that the First Appellate Authority, Shri Vikash Chandra, has not submitted any report as directed by Commission in its interim order dated 21.12.2020. Further, the CPIO have also failed to furnish the requisite information/reply despite lapse of more than two and half years. Thus, it appears that the respondent have no regard to the RTI Act as well as to the Commission. In view of the power conferred under section 19 (8) (a) of the RTI Act, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission may take any such steps as may be necessary to secure the compliance of the provisions of the RTI Page 4 of 6 Act. Accordingly, in the administration of justice and in order to secure compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act, the First Appellate Authority was directed in the interim order dated 21.12.2020 to inquire into the matter and submit a report specially issues discussed in the interim order. However, the same was not done by the FAA till 06.04.2021 i.e. on the date of hearing. Therefore, by invoking provisions contained under sections 18, 19 and 20 of the RTI Act read with the Right to Information Rules, 2012, Shri Vikash Chandra, the FAA (deemed CPIO), is show caused for not complying with the directions of the Commission and Shri Shailesh Kumar, present CPIO and Anil Kumar Pandey, the then CPIO are show caused for not furnishing the complete information to the appellant as to why action under section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be initiated against each of them. All written submissions by the aforementioned officers must be uploaded to the Commission's web portal within 21 days. The respondent is further directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the revised information/reply to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, if not already provided and a copy of the same may be uploaded on the Commission's portal. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned.

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

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) िदनां क/Date: 08.04.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

STATE BANK OF INDIA PREMISES & ESTATE DEPTT., LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA, BIHAR - 800 001 THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-1), STATE BANK OF INDIA PREMISES & ESTATE DEPTT., LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA, BIHAR - 800 001 CPIO : 1. SH. SHAILESH KUMAR (C.P.I.O) STATE BANK OF INDIA, PREMISES & ESTATE DEPTT., LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA, BIHAR - 800 001

2. SH. SHAILESH KUMAR (C.P.I.O) STATE BANK OF INDIA, PREMISES & ESTATE DEPTT., LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA, BIHAR - 800 001 (FOR FORWARDING TO THE THEN C.P.I.O SH. ANIL KUMAR PANDEY) SH. HARIHAR PRASAD SINHA Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission