Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00655-SM dated 01.11.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)
Dated: 10 June 2009
Complainant : Shri Keso Saran Sharma
Respondent : Regional Manager & PIO, State Bank of India,
Bareilly.
The Complainant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Pradeep Kumar, Manager (HR)
was present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Complainant had requested the Regional Manager/CPIO in his
application dated 1 November 2007 for two pieces of information
regarding the benefits from the Mutual Welfare Scheme (MWS). The CPIO
replied on 19 November 2007 and, instead of giving specific and clear
information, gave a rather explanatory account of what the Branch had
done in the matter of his MWS membership and the consequent benefits.
Not satisfied with this reply, he approached the CIC in this complaint.
3. During the hearing, both the sides were present and made their
submissions. The Complainant showed us various communications from
the Bank, received from time to time, in which it had been clearly
mentioned that on account of his retiring from the Bank’s service, prior
to his age of superannuation, his contribution for the MWS for the
remaining period would be recovered from him and deposited in the
Scheme and that he would be entitled to get the benefits of the Scheme
after he would attain the age of 58. He also showed us a communication
from a particular Branch of the Bank to the effect that the contribution
for 40 months, that is, for the remaining period between his actual date
CIC/PB/C/2008/00655-SM
of retirement and his age of superannuation, had been deducted and
deposited in the respective account of the Scheme. In view of such clear
communications from the Bank and deductions made from him for the
entire period upto his age of superannuation, he is at a loss to understand
why the benefits from the MWS bad been denied to him. The Respondent
clarified that the Branch had taken up his matter with the highest level in
the Bank and the proposal to extend the benefits of MWS to the
Complainant was turned down by the competent authority on the ground
that he had not paid his complete contribution before his retirement
from the Bank’s service. Significantly, the Respondent pointed that the
contribution for the remaining period was made a few months after his
actual retirement.
4. Be that as it may, we find the reply of the CPIO to be not very
clear and specific. The Complainant had specifically wanted to know
that in spite of his having fulfilled the conditions of the scheme, why was
he not given the benefit of the Scheme and why at least was he not paid
the interest on the amount deposited by him under the Scheme. In
addition, he had also wanted to know about the reason why he was not
paid any interest for the delayed payment of his contribution under this
Scheme. Though the CPIO has given some explanation in his reply, we
would still like to direct him to provide very specific and categorical reply
in a tabular form on both these queries within 10 working days from the
receipt of this order.
5. Clearly this is a case more in the nature of a grievance rather than
for information. The Bank has denied to give him the benefit of the
Scheme even though some functionaries of the Bank had given him in
writing that such benefits would be available to him after obtaining the
age of 58. Nobody had told him at the time of recovery of 40 months
contribution for the Scheme that he would not be entiled to any benefit
since such recovery was being done after his actual retirement from the
Bank’s service. We would think that the Branch should again take up his
CIC/PB/C/2008/00655-SM
case with the highest Authority in the Bank once again and that Authority
may consider his case and decide on the benefits in view of the very
special circumstances of his case. As far as the information sought is
concerned, our direction as above should suffice.
6. With the above direction and observation, this appeal is disposed
off.
7. 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/C/2008/00655-SM