Central Information Commission
Purnima Nigam vs State Bank Of India on 19 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/A/2022/131302
Purnima Nigam ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Regional Manager, State Bank
Of India, Regional Business
Office-1 Kanpur, RTI Cell,
Administrative office, M.G.
Marg, Kanpur, UP-208001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13/07/2023
Date of Decision : 13/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 01/01/2022
First appeal filed on : 23/01/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 25/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27/06/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.11.2021 seeking the following information:1
"Our submission-:
(a)Our letter dated 23.07.2018 addressed to the AGM,SBI,RACPC, Zonal Office, Kanpur, copy endorsed to your good self, delivered at your Region by me on 20.05,19, was sent by RACPC to your hryanagar(K) Branch, under cover of his letter No.KAN:RACPC: 2018-19-627 of 17th Jan. 2019, copy thereof also endorsed to you for your necessary action.
Have you received any reply from your above Branch Manager (copy of his reply may kindly be provided to us for information/record) and action, if any, taken by you be advised to us? If, information I however, no action as yet has been taken, reasons therefore may kindly be intimated if you so please?
ISF:
(b) We had received your one letter No.RI/ Kan/JRC/2290 of 29th Aug. 2020, wherein no reference of our letter, for which your reply is being sent to us, was given, please advise me date of our letter now. In your this letter, you advised us that housing loan (h/l) was applied for and sanctioned as requested under public category and loan agreement accepted by us. * In reply to your this letter, we sent a letter dated 7th Sap. 2020 wherein we requested to send us our such a request letter seeking h/1 under pub. category as also loan agreement which has been duly accepted by us. These two documents have not yet been sent to us which now may kindly be sent for our perusal/ and record.
Oss/ISF
(c) As regards para 2 of your above letter dated 29.8.20, kindly refer to our letter dated 7th Sep, 2020 and send us your pointwise advices raised by us therein, under the above Act.
OSS
(d) You advised us in para 2 of your above letter that loan cannot be converted as circular instructions are applicable only to existing staff. We give hereunder facilities being availed of by existing/retired staff: -
(i) salary/pension by both these categories received.
(ii) 1% higher rate of interest on deposit a/cs -do- ;
(iii) Holiday-Homes;
(iv) Medical benefits as per service rules by existing staff while medicines from Bank's Dispensary/Insurance Policy 'AI & 'B' by retired staff; and 2
(v) Superannuation benefits viz. PF, Leave Encashment, Gratuity/Pension by both the above categories of staff at retirement.
ISF:
In our view, there is no basic difference between these two. If you do not agree, kindly let us know the difference between the two. Why and how a benefit available to existing staff can be denied to existing retired staff? Rules, framed by our Bank, should be self-explicit, proportionate/ethical, and logical, so that these may not be detrimental to retired staff and applicable to all in letter and spirit. We conceive that you will also kindly agree to our submissions and if not, reasons be given to us therefore.
Os.s
(e) Our undernoted letters addressed to your goodself are still pending and no reply received by us:-
(a) Our letter dated 07.09.2020 and dated 23.07.2018 ;
(b) -do- 28.12.2020 and dated 21.07.2021 ;
(c) -do- 04.08.2021; and
(d) One letter dated 19.07.2021 addressed to the CM(HR), SEI,HR Section,Zonal Office, Kanpur, by us, in reply to his letter No.KAN:HR:1T:1945 dated 07.07.2021 with which he sent your letter No.RI:KAN:JRC:2290 of 29th Aug. 2020, reply thereof is yet to be received. Kindly help to get it.
ISF:
Sir, if there is a time limit, within which, a reply to the letter(s) delivered personally or sent per Regd./Speed Post or through Courier Service, is expected to reach to the sender of such letters. If so, what is it? Kindly advise.
OSs.(f):
I visited Region IIZO, Kanpur, on 22.07.21 to deliver a letter dated 21.07.21 at your Despatch Section. T--he I/C, Despatch Section, consulted your Manager (HR) to receive above letter. The Mgr.(HR) advised him not to receive it. Then, I met him(Mgr.HR) to receive the same. He asked me to deliver it to the AGM,RACPC,ZO,Kanpur. I said to him that a letter, addressed to the RM--I, is not bring taken by you people, how RACPC Department would receive it? They would certainly have laughed at me if at all I had tried to deliver it. In this connection, kindly peruse my letter dated 4th Aug. 2021, sent per Regd. post, on refusal by your Manager (HR) causing me discomfort(physical) besides financial loss for sending a letter by Regd. post which was refused to receive. All these could hav--a been saved 3 had your Manager (HR) permitted me to deliver my letter. This letter, if gone through, would amply clear my mental agony, faced by me, without any fault of my own, in the hands of your Manager(HR) who did not look to my age (77 years of age standing before him as a big culprit(help--less) for delivering a letter in question), having put in 36 years of serv--ice in the Bank. Bank has displayed undernoted yardsticks on its Notice Board at Regions:--
(a) Service
(b) Transparency
(c) Ethics
(d)Politeness; and
(e) Sustainability.
I did not find any one of the above in your Region on my visit on 22.07.21 for delivering one letter personally.
ISF:
Are there any such instructions which give power to officials dealing with miscellaneous matters, not to receive letters addressed to your Region? If so, kindly provide us photocopy thereof for our perusal/record. We will be satisfied on receipt thereof and would have no grievance in this regard. If no such instructions are there, it is up to you to take remedial measure so that this sort of misdemeanor is not faced by pretty old or even young person, visiting your region to get their work done, coming all the way from far off places."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 01.01.2022 stating as under:
"In this connection, we have advised that the Housing Loan was absorbed as requested under public category and the loan agreement has been duly accepted by you. The Housing loan could not be converted as it was availed in October-2004 and you never applied at the initial stage while availing. It was not converted as in compliance with the circular instructions the same was applicable only to the existing members. Now the loan has been closed by you on 06.01.2020."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.01.2022. FAA's order, dated 25.02.2022, held as under:
4Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri J S Nigam husband of the Appellant present through Video- Conference.
Respondent: Shri Ashish M Sinha, Chief Manager present through Video- Conference.
The written submissions of the Appellant are taken on record.
The representative of the Appellant submitted that till date no information was provided to the Appellant on her RTI application.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 01.01.2022, complete point- wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant. However, as per the directions given by the FAA, on 11.03.2022 revised point-wise reply/information was provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and upon perusal of records, observes that the Appellant is not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent on her RTI application. The Respondent apprised the Commission that the information sought by the Appellant vide her RTI application has been provided to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letters dated 01.01.2022 and 11.03.2022 where complete point-wise reply/information was provided to the Appellant.5
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Since, the Appellant has a grievance related to her home loan account, etc., therefore, in the interest of justice and on humanitarian grounds, the Commission directs the Respondent to facilitate a meeting with the Appellant in their office on a mutually convenient time and date and effort should be made to redress the grievance of the Appellant in a time bound manner.
The Respondent is further directed to send a complete set of their replies along with enclosures, if any to the Appellant, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Hence, no intervention of the Commission at this stage is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6