CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/C/2008/00522
Dated, the 06th January, 2009
Complaint : Shri D.K. Shukla
Respondents : Delhi Transport Corporation
This second-appeal / complaint came up for hearing on 22.12.2008.
Appellant / Complainant was present in person. Respondents were represented
by Shri R.N. Gupta, Sr. Manager (Account) of the public authority, viz. Delhi
Transport Corporation.
2. Complainant, through his complaint-petition filed before the Commission
had pointed out that information pertaining to item no.2 of his RTI-application
dated 07.09.2007 was never furnished to him by the CPIO. This item of query
read as follows:-
“The letter of officer’s opted for pension in the year 1992 received by
pension cell. Kindly provide the letter number and its date.”
3. A show-cause notice was issued to the CPIO and holder-of-information,
viz. Shri R.N. Gupta, Sr. Manager (Accounts) on 09.09.2008. His reply dated
22.08.2008 has been received in the Commission.
4. A perusal of the reply shows that the Accounts, the Personnel and the
Pension Branches of the public authority, viz. DTC had been tossing the ball
from one court to another about where the information was held. Finally, the
information was found to be untraceable by all three branches and replies to that
effect were sent to the complainant on 18.10.2007 and 10.12.2007 by the
Sr. Manager (Accounts), Pension Cell.
5. I do not think any purpose would be served by pursuing this matter further
about who actually holds the information and whether the information is present
on the files of the respondent-public-authority. Nevertheless, this episode shows
the unsatisfactory maintenance of important records by this public authority. It is
hoped that the senior management of the Delhi Transport Corporation will pay
attention to the unhappy condition of record management in its offices and apply
correctives.
6. In the matter of the main appeal of the complainant which was regarding
non-payment of his pension and the entitlements, it appears that the various
Page 1 of 3
authorities connected with granting and releasing complainant’s pension and
other entitlements, became active in settling the dues and releasing the amounts
to the complainant only after he approached the Commission in appeal /
complaint against the officers of the public authority. Complainant retired from
the service of DTC on 28.02.2006. However, his pension payment was effected
only in the year 2008 ⎯ after a delay of more than 2 years.
7. This whole episode is a commentary on the unsatisfactory working of the
officers of the public authority dealing with pensionary matters. It is important
that correctives are urgently applied.
8. During the hearing, complainant pointed out that although he has been
provided the GPF amounts standing in his name, Rs.67,000 still remains unpaid.
For the delayed payment of his Provident Fund amount, the public authority have
not paid him any interest either.
9. Respondents had no clear-cut explanation about why interest should not
be paid to pensioners for the failure of the public authority to settle his GPF
payment in time. In fact, by holding up his Provident Fund ⎯ not releasing it
when it was due to be paid ⎯ respondents have themselves benefited by the
interest accrual on that money which legitimately belonged to the complainant.
10. Respondents had no explanation either about why Rs.67,000 was withheld
from the GPF amount / terminal benefits due to the complainant.
11. It is obvious that there has been a certain injustice meted out to this
petitioner in the matter of his pensionary and Provident Fund settlement by the
public authority, which was duty-bound to settle them well within time under the
provisions of appropriate Acts and Rules.
12. In the light of the above, the following orders are made:-
13. Complainant may file a fresh RTI-application before the appropriate CPIO
about his outstanding Provident Fund claim as well as the interest payment due
on the delayed payment of his pensionary benefits as well as Provident Fund.
If he is not satisfied with the reply received, complainant shall be free to
approach the Commission directly without coming through the Appellate
Authority.
14. Since detriment has been caused to the complainant on account of the loss
of key records about his pensionary and Provident Fund entitlements, notice may
issue to the head of the public authority, viz. Chairman, DTC as to why a
compensation of Rs.5 lakhs not be awarded to the complainant under
Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. Returnable in two weeks.
Page 2 of 3
15. The head of the public authority, viz. the CMD, DTC is directed to
institute an enquiry as to how the records as mentioned at item no.2 of the
complainant’s RTI-application have been lost and who were responsible for its
loss. The report will be submitted to the Commission within six weeks of the
receipt of this order.
16. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 3 of 3