Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Saiprakash Rajendra Maddi vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 13 September, 2024

                                         के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                                Central Information Commission
                                     बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
                                 Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                   नई  द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RUGBK/A/2023/619113

Saiprakash Rajendra Maddi                                         ... अपीलकता /Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम
CPIO: Maharashtra Gramin
Bank, Aurangabad                                              ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 11.12.2022                  FA     : 31.01.2023             SA     : 15.04.2023

CPIO : 09.01.2023                 FAO : 01.03.2023                Hearing : 06.09.2024


Date of Decision: 12.09.2024
                                            CORAM:
                                      Hon'ble Commissioner
                                    _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                           ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) "I have applied LFC on date 25-02-2021 on MSSO Portal provided application by the bank. The application was sanctioned by a competent authority on date 06-03-2021. On date 24-03-2021. LFC submitted by me was rejected by Head Office only because I have submitted resignation dated 12-03-2021 (Serving 3 months' Notice Period thereafter).

(ii) My privilege leave balance shows leave balance 156 on MSSO Portal at the time of reliving from bank services. As I was eligible for 50% PL Leave Encashment but till date I did not get any benefits.

(iii) As per IBA 11th BPS, Annual encashment of privilege leave for the year 2020, 2021 benefits was not given to me."

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-

(i) As per the decision of competent authority Mr. Saipraksh Rajendra Maddi was not eligible for the LFC encashment, hence it was rejected.

(ii) As per exit policy of bank the staff if eligible for half (20%) of the PL encashment after 20 years of qualifying service.

(iii) Bank has not paid the amount of annual encashment of PL to any of the staff who has resigned from the bank service.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.01.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 01.03.2023 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 15.04.2023.

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference; and the respondent remained absent.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that his LFC encashment was sanctioned through his application dated 06.03.2021 and he was serving his notice period for three months. Therefore, the respondent authority had wrongly concluded that LFC benefits were not extended to the employees on notice period. Moreover, the bank had provided him other benefits for that period including location allowance, learning allowance, performance linked incentive. Therefore, it was unreasonable on the part of the respondent authority to have denied him the benefits for annual encashment of privilege leave as mentioned in the bank's circular.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observes that the appellant has expressed a grievance and has not sought any material records or information, as prescribed under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Besides, the respondent has provided necessary clarification although the CPIO was not under an obligation to cite reasons or instructions. Therefore, there is no scope for further intervention in the matter. However, the respondent remained absent despite notice. The CPIO is directed to submit explanations citing reasons for his/her absence during the hearing, without seeking leave of the Commission, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

                                                                     आनंदी राम लंगम)
                                               (Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं            म
                                                                         सूचना आयु )
                                              Information Commissioner (सू
                                                               दनांक/Date: 12.09.2024
Authenticated true copy

Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO (Under RTI Act, 2005) Maharashtra Gramin Bank, HO Plot No - 42, in Gat No. - 33 Village - Golwadi Growth Centre, Waluj Mahangar - IV of CIDCO, Aurangabad MH - 431010

2. Saiprakash Rajendra Maddi Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)