Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri K.Ramana Kumar vs Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank on 23 October, 2009

Central Information Commission
Shri K.Ramana Kumar vs Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank on 23 October, 2009
                          Central Information Commission
              Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/01080-SM dated 02-02-2008
                Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)



                                                      Dated: 23 October 2009


Name of the Appellant              :   Shri K.Ramana Kumar,
                                       D.No. 10-3-142, Panja Street,
                                       M G Road, Bapatla,
                                       Guntur Distt, A.P. - 522 101.

Name of the Public Authority       :   CPIO, Andhra Pragathi Grameena
                                       Bank, Head Office, P.B.No. 65,
                                       Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh - 516 001.



       The Appellant was present in person.

       On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-

(i) Shri D.Anantrao, Central Public Information Officer,

(ii) Shri C. Mastanala, Senior Manager

2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated February 2,

2008, requested the CPIO for two pieces of information regarding the rules

prevalent in the Bank as on March 31, 2007 regarding payment of privilege

leave encashment to officers who resigned from service and about the

manner of payment of gratuity to an officer who resigned after completing

23 years of service. The CPIO replied on March 4, 2008 and provided some

details about the manner in which these payments had been calculated in

the case of the Appellant himself who had resigned from the service of the

Bank. Not satisfied with this reply, the Appellant had moved the Appellate

Authority on March 12, 2008. That authority disposed of the appeal in his

order dated April 2, 2008 along with which he also supplied the Appellant

CIC/PB/A/2008/01080-SM
with a copy of the Service Regulations 2006. The Appellant has come before

the CIC alleging that the information provided so far is incomplete.

3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was

present in the Guntur studio of the NIC whereas the Respondent was present

in the Kadappa studio. We heard their submissions. The Respondent clarified

that since their service regulations did not contain any specific regulation

for computing the privilege leave encashment for officers who resigned from

service, they had adopted such regulations as prevalent in their sponsoring

Bank. The Appellant submitted that he should be provided with copies of

those regulations along with the information about the date on which those

were adopted in the AP Grameen Bank.

4. We direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working

days from the receipt of this order, certified copies of the regulations

adopted by the Bank in this regard along with the date on which these were

adopted.

5. With the above information, the appeal is disposed off.

6. 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

CIC/PB/A/2008/01080-SM