Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/AT/C/2010/000296SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 14 November 2011
Date of decision : 14 November 2011
Name of the Complainant : Shri D P Sinha
Manki Niketan, H.No. 17,
Road No. 5, East Patel Nagar,
Patna - 800 023.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, O/o. the Accountant General (A&E),
Bihar, Birchand Patel Path,
Patna, Bihar.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Ram Heth, CPIO was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard this case through video conferencing. The Complainant was
not present in spite of notice. The Respondent was present in the Patna studio
of the NIC. We heard his submissions.
3. The Complainant had sought the copy of the PPO of one Siddheshwar P
Sinha, a retired DFO and some other details about the advances availed of by
him. The CPIO informed him that in the absence of the PPO number, it would
not be possible to search out the desired details regarding the pension of this
retired employee as the data of the pensioners was being maintained PPO
number wise and not by their names. He had also noted that the desired
information being about the personal matters of a third party pensioner, it was
CIC/AT/C/2010/000296SM
exempt from disclosure in terms of Section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act. The Appellate Authority had endorsed this decision.
4. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that the pension details,
running into hundreds of thousands at any given point of time, were being
maintained in the office of the AG, PPO numberwise and not by the names of
the pensioners and, therefore, in the absence of the PPO number, it would
indeed be impossible to search out the desired details regarding a particular
pensioner. Besides, he also submitted that, in any case, the office of the AG did
not maintain the copy of the PPO; only the details of the PPO are recorded in a
particular register. It seems only two copies of the PPO are always made and
forwarded to the pensioner himself as also to the Treasury concerned. In the
light of this explanation, we cannot find fault with the CPIO for not providing the
copy of the PPO.
5. In respect of the other details regarding the advances availed of by the
said pensioner, he submitted that they should be available in the office of the
AG, Jharkhand and not with them after the bifurcations of the State of Bihar. He
indicated that a copy of the RTI request had been forwarded to the CPIO of the
office of the AG, Jharkhand right at the beginning. It is not clear if the
Complainant has received any communication from that CPIO till date.
6. Assuming that he has not received any information from the CPIO of the
office of the AG, Jharkhand, we direct that the CPIO of the AG, Bihar should
forward a copy of our order to the CPIO in the office of the AG, Jharkhand who,
in turn, should provide the necessary information regarding the advances
granted to this particular retired employee if such information is still available in
that office. This should be complied with within 20 working days of receiving this
CIC/AT/C/2010/000296SM
order. In case, the relevant records are no longer available, even then, the
CPIO concerned must write to the Complainant and inform him accordingly.
7. The complaint is this post of accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief 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)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/AT/C/2010/000296SM