CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000593/SG/14087
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000593/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. A. C. Aggarwal
SFC Flat No:105-B
Block "B", Pocket "N"
Shalimar Bagh
New Delhi-110088
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
Deputy General Manager
Allahabad Bank
17, Parliament Street
New Delhi-110001
RTI application filed on : 26/08/2010
PIO replied on : 08/11/2010
First Appeal filed on : 23/10/2010
First Appellate Authority order on : 27/01/2011
Second Appeal received on : 05/12/2010
Information Sought:
(1)A copy of the pension Scheme(old) of 1890 as amended from time to time.
(2)A copy of each of the board Resolutions passed after 1890, making any change in this Pension
Scheme of the Bank.
(3)Inspection of relevant records of the proceedings of the board preferred at your Zonal Office, New
Delhi or alternatively at Head Office of the Bank.
Reply:
As they are 20 yrs old record, so concerned department has been advised to trace the same.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Reply not in stipulated time.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"The appellant has enclosed copy of the Old pension scheme (of 1890) as at 01/01/1974 and a copy of
the affidavit dated 19/08/1993, filed on behalf of the Bank, in a court of law. The appellant has desired
to know, whether the pension rules as circulated then were correct & whether the contents of affidavit
then filed, were correct.
Under the RTI Act, the information held by the public authority can be provided, as available. Here,
the Pension Rules & the Affidavit, as mentioned supra, are already available with the appellant. A
CPIO cannot be expected to comment whether the affidavit provided by someone on behalf of the
Bank in 1983 was correct or not. Similarly, he cannot be expected to comment whether, the pension
rules circulated by the Bank in 1983, were correct or not. Any dispute about the same is outside the
scope of the RTI Act, 2005.
Under point c) the appellant has now narrowed down his requirement. Previously, he had desired a
copy of each of the Board Resolutions passed after 1890, making any change in this Pension Scheme
of the Bank. Now he is seeking a copy of the Board Resolution, after 19/08/1993, if any, changing the
contents of Clause 7 of the Scheme. Although, it is still a roaming inquiry, an effort can be made to
locate the date of any such amendment & provide the information, if available.
In view of the foregoing, the CPIO may be directed to provide to the appellant information now
desired at point c) above, as available with the Bank, within 20 working days from the date of receipt
of the order."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
"Public Authority Allahabad Bank had paid me Statutory Gratuity of their own but I had requested
them to pay me pension under service rules."
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. A. C. Aggarwal;
Respondent : Absent;
The Appellant admits that the information has been provided to him but states that in the
pension scheme provided to him at point-7 Minimum Pension it is stated, “the pension scheme is
applicable to the employees in lieu of gratuity. An employee is entitled to Minimum Pension equivalent
to the amount of gratuity admissible to him.” The Appellant claims that this rule has been changed and
that this rule is not in existence and the PIO has given him a rule which is not on the record. The
Commission cannot pass any orders on this unless some clear documents are produced before it.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records has been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
16 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (kh)