Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/00886-SM dated 06.02.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 26 June 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Omkar Nath Bhardwaj, 102
Gandhi Nagar, Sigara, Varanasi - 221
010.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO & General Manager II, State Bank
of India, Local Head Office, Moti Mahal
Marg, P.B. No. 57, Lucknow - 226 001.
The Appellant was not present whereas the Respondent was present.
The case in brief is as under.
2. The Appellant had applied to the CPIO on 6 February 2008 seeking to
know about the action taken by the Bank on payment of his terminal dues as
ordered by the Supreme Court and payment of interest due to delay in
releasing those dues. The CPIO replied on 20 March 2008 and provided the
desired information. Not satisfied with this reply, he preferred an appeal
before the first Appellate Authority on 2 April 2008. The Appellate Authority
disposed off the appeal in his order dated 6 May 2008 by endorsing the order
of the CPIO. Now, the Appellant has come to the CIC in second appeal
against the above order.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant was not present. In his appeal, the
Appellant has prayed for the interest to be paid on the Provident Fund and
the Gratuity with effect from the date of his removal from service. The
Respondent submitted that the Public Authority had already released the
payments due to the Appellant including interest on the Provident Fund and
the Gratuity computed from the date of the Supreme Court’s order. If the
Appellant thinks that the interest was payable with effect from the date of
his removal from service and not from the date the Supreme Court’s order,
he will have to approach an appropriate authority or court of law because
under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, such a relief cannot be given to
him. All that he can get is information which has already been given to him
by the CPIO. In this case, we notice that the Appellant had written to the
CPIO originally on 18 December 2007 but had received no reply or
information. It is not clear if this application had been received by the CPIO
at all but the CPIO has furnished information based on this application as
the Appellant had enclosed a copy of this along with his 6 February 2008
application. We would, therefore, like the CPIO to explain to us in writing
within 10 working days from the receipt of this order if the 18 December
2007 application had been received at all and, if so, why no information had
been provided within the stipulated period. If we do not receive his
explanation in time, we will proceed to decide on the penalty under Section
20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act ex parte
4. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied
against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the
CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
Copy to:
1. Shri Omkar Nath Bhardwaj, 102 Gandhi Nagar, Sigara, Varanasi – 221 010.
2. CPIO & General Manager II, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Moti Mahal Marg, P.B. No.
57, Lucknow – 226 001.