The Central Information
Commissioner,
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
II floor, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Road,
NEW DELHI -110066
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
II floor, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Road,
NEW DELHI -110066
|
|
|
|
Appeal before
Central Information Commission
Appeal No. Dated 13-06-2012
[For office use only]
As I
am aggrieved by the decision of the First Appellate
Authority, I hereby file this Second
Appeal for your kind
decision.
1. Details of appellant:
1.1 Full Name: --Mrs. Priya Ramesh Swaminathan
1.2. Full Address:
1.3 Phone/Cell No.: -2065100198/9850019553
2. Details of Central Public Information Officer
(CPIO):
2.1 Name/Designation: Mr. K. Rajivan Nair, Regional
Manager (CRM/CPIO)
2.2 Full Address: Life Insurance Corporation of India
Western Zonal
Office, CRM Department
2nd
Floor Link, ‘Yogakshema’ Bldg.,
Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman
Point,
Mumbai-400021
2.3 Name of Public Authority: Life Insurance
Corporation of India ( L.I.C. of India )
3.1 Name/Designation of the FAA: Mr. R.R.Dash,
Zonal Manager (WZO)/Appellate Authority
3.2 Full Address of FAA: Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Western Zonal Office,
2nd
Floor Link, ‘Yogakshema’ Bldg.,
Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman point,
Mumbai-400021
4. Dates of RTI application/First Appeal:
4.1 To CPIO:
2 copies given by hand to the
O.S.Dept., L.I.C. of India, 953br., Camp,Pune-411001
on 11-02-2012, as directed telephonically
by CRM Dept., L.I.C. of India, Pune Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash,
Shivajinagar, Pune-411005 (One copy for the Branch Office records and one copy
for forwarding to the Divisional office; as per proper channel)
One copy
each, mailed to the WZO and Central
Office, L.I.C. of India, Mumbai-400021on:
15-02-2012 by Speed Post. (Since both the offices are located in the same
premises, I sent both the copies in one envelope to save postage. I did this on
my own, as a reminder for the higher offices; though as per standard procedure
in L.I.C. of India, the Divisional Office is supposed to forward the same to
the Western Zonal Office immediately).
Again sent one copy to the Sr. Divisional
Manager, L.I.C. of India, PDO, Jeevan Prakash, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005 as a reminder;
by Speed Post on 17-02-2012.
4.2 To FAA: 23-03-2012
& mailed on: 24-03-2012 by Speed
Post.
5. Particulars of Decisions:
5.1 Reference No & Date of CPIO’s Decision: 145 dt. 09-03-2012
5.2 Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision: A-42/2012 dt. 21-04-2012
5.3 Date/s of personal hearing by FAA: Nil
6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:
6.1
CPIO: 14-03-2012
6.2
FAA: 26-04-2012
7. Details of information
sought:
1. What is the
official reason, because of which my arrears payment and difference in retirement
benefits were repudiated during Wage Revision payment in the latest Wage
Revision Charter dated 11th October, 2010?
2.Kindly provide me a copy of the gazette and
official notification, along with information about which specific provisions
of the gazette and official notification justify or state that I should not be
given the arrears due w.e.f August 2007?
3.Please furnish me a copy of Names, Addresses,
Telephone/Mobile nos., Branch Nos., Branch addresses, D.O. Nos. and D.O.
addresses of all the employees of LIC of India, who were denied arrears’
payment under the Charter dated 11th October, 2010.
4.Were any of the above employees paid the arrears
amount by LIC of India? If so, why, when
and by whom? Names and other details as in (3) above, to be furnished.
Documentary proof to be provided by LIC of India.
5.Is there any case filed by any such employee,
whose arrears’ payment was repudiated by LIC of India, against LIC of India; in
respect of any such Charter. If so,
details about the case—Name of the appellant, B.O. and D.O. addresses,
residential and official address, telephone/mobile no., Charter Date (in
respect of any such charter, including the latest one) and copy of the
judgement.
6.What was the outcome of the case as in (5)
above? Documentary proof to be provided
by the LIC of India.
7.No. of resigning employees all over India and the
total amount repudiated (of arrears’ payment by LIC of India) with bifurcation
in respect of each such employee; in the Charter dated 11th October,
2010 applicable w.e.f August 2007.
8.No. of employees, names, addresses
telephone/mobile nos. and amounts repudiated respectively (in respect of each
one) under all the Charters of Wage Revisions (Previous 5 Charters, excluding
the latest one) and their Branch Nos., Addresses of Branches, D.O. Nos.,
Addresses of D.O.s also to be provided.
9.Since which year or which Charter has LIC of
India started repudiating arrears’ payment legitimately due, to its resigning
employees; and why?
10.Details of the exact legal provisions and
clauses on the bases of which LIC of India has arrived at its premise of
refusing to pay Arrears’ payment and subsequent difference in retirement
benefits to its resigning employees.
11.Who takes this crucial decision to repudiate
arrears’ payment to the employees? The
Government of India or LIC of India?
Details to be provided with documentary proof.
12.The total no. of transactions effected under my
S.R. No. 441595 from 1st August, 2007 to 2nd July, 2010,
the last date of my service in LIC of India.
13.Copy of the note or letter put up to the
Chairman, LIC of India for the final decision regarding my resignation.
14.Copy of the final approval of my resignation by
LIC of India.
15.Documents pertaining to the Board Meetings of
LIC of India wherein this resolution to repudiate arrears of resigning
employees; has been taken. Kindly provide Minutes of the Meetings with
signatures of all the attending members.
16.With reference to my representation letters
dated 20-10-2010 (addressed to the Executive Director, Personnel, LIC of India)
and 20-11-2010 (addressed to the Chairman, LIC of India), sent through Speed
Post and subsequent e-mails dated 22-10-10, 26-10-10, 01-11-10, 08-11-10,
13-11-10, 16-11-10, 20-11-10, 27-11-10, 04-12-2010, 06-12-2010, 09-12-2010,
13-12-2010, 21-12-2010, 24-12-2010, 25-12-2010, 30-12-2010, 04-01-2011,
13-01-2011, 17-01-2011, 28-01-2011, 31-01-2011, 08-02-2011; why were they not
replied to immediately? Why was there an
inordinate delay of 8 months for a single line unsatisfactory reply vide letter
received by me on 07-06-2011, that too replied to; not by the addressees of my
letters, but by the lower office (Pune Divisional Office No.1)? Kindly provide an explanation letter.
17.Copy of the LIC of India, Staff Regulations,
1960 and subsequent modifications/amendments therein, if any.
18.Names, phone numbers and official addresses of
the current Chairman, Officiating Chairman, Executive Directors, Managing
Directors and Sr. Divisional Manager of Pune Divisional Office 1; LIC of India
19.Please
provide a list of applicants for Wage Revision arrears’ payments in respect of
the Charter dated 11th October, 2010 during the last 16 months,
giving names, dates of application and dates on which replies were issued by
LIC of India.
20.
What are the factors due to which the Wage Revision Charter is delayed
inordinately, every time that it is legitimately due?
21.
a) Does the LIC of India, Staff Regulations, 1960 and
subsequent modifications/amendments therein, if any, contain any
clause wherein it is mentioned that arrears payment after Wage Revision due to
a Charter notification, may be denied to an employee on roll of the LIC of India in the period for which the
Charter has been announced?
b)
If so, kindly point out the requisite provision or clause with adequate, satisfactory
explanation/rationale.
c) Does this denial of arrears payment
and difference in retirement benefits, agree in principle, with the labour laws
applicable in India?
8. Brief facts of the case:
I, the undersigned, resigned as an
Assistant Administrative Officer from the service of the Corporation w.e.f 03-07-2010.
After the Wage Revision
Notification on 08-10-2010, I had been given to understand
that the provisions of the Wage Revision Notification dt. 11-10-2010, which
state that officers whose resignations have been accepted upto this date, from
the date of notification, would not be eligible to receive the benefits of wage
revision; hence I was not eligible for arrears’ payment.
In my opinion, I am entitled to
receive the difference in wages w.e.f.
01-08-2007, i.e. the effective date of wage revision up to
02-07-2010, my last date in service;
as the wage revision is with
retrospective effect and wage is a basic
right of employment. I was in service during this period.
Kindly note that I had always been a
very sincere and dedicated employee of the Corporation and even after my
resignation, I have not joined service of any private insurance company, out of
a sense of deep-rooted loyalty to the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
In the light of the above-mentioned
facts, I had requested the Executive Director (Personnel), L.I.C. of India (Vide
my letter dt. 18-10-2010 sent through
Speed Post and the Chairman of L.I.C. of India (Vide my letter dt. 20-11-2010
sent through Speed Post), to favorably consider my appeal for payment of Arrears and Difference in retirement and other
benefits arising out of the Wage Revision Notification dt. 08-10-2010; and inform
me in writing about the decision to pay me the arrears as well as the
difference payable to me; (on account of the wage revision) of the retirement
benefits, etc. There was no response from them.
Hence I started sending e-mails which were dated 22-10-10,
26-10-10, 01-11-10, 08-11-10, 13-11-10, 16-11-10, 20-11-10, 27-11-10,
04-12-2010, 06-12-2010, 09-12-2010, 13-12-2010, 21-12-2010, 24-12-2010,
25-12-2010, 30-12-2010, 04-01-2011, 13-01-2011, 17-01-2011, 28-01-2011,
31-01-2011, 08-02-2011; they were also not replied to, and ignored by L.I.C. of
India. There was an inordinate delay of 8 months
for sending a single line unsatisfactory reply vide letter received by me on
07-06-2011, that too replied to; not by the addressees of my letters, but by
the lower office (Pune Divisional Office No.1).
As per Part
II- Sec.3(i) of the Gazette of India: Extraordinary, Ministry of Finance
(Department
of Financial Services) Notification, New Delhi, the 8th October, 2010; G.S.R.
824 (E), the Explanatory Memorandum on page number 18 says that
“1. The
Central Government has accorded approval to revise the terms and conditions of
service of Class 1 officers of Life Insurance Corporation of India with effect
from the dates specified in the notification. The Life Insurance
Corporation of India Class 1 Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1985 are being amended accordingly with effect from these dates
as specified in the notification.
2. It
is certified that no employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India is
likely to be affected adversely by the notification being given retrospective
effect.
Kindly note the point number 2. We, the Class 1
Officers who have resigned, are also in the class of employees of the
Corporation as a whole, and have been affected adversely by non-payment of
arrears and difference in retirement benefits and other dues, hence must be
compensated as per rules immediately. There should be no discrimination made by the Life Insurance
Corporation of India between us and the other employees though the notification
was being given with retrospective effect.
Since the Ministry of Finance (New Delhi) is itself
certifying in the Explanatory Memorandum of the said Gazette Part II-
Sec.3(i) of the Gazette of India: Extraordinary, Ministry of Finance (Department
of Financial Services) Notification, New Delhi, the 8th October, 2010; G.S.R.
824 (E), that no employee of the Life
Insurance Corporation of India is likely to be affected adversely by the
notification being given retrospective effect, LIC’s decision to refuse payment of
arrears and difference in retirement benefits and other dues, to the
resigning employees; is wrong.
The Wage
Revision Charter was actually due on 1st August 2007, when I was on
L.I.C.’s roll of service. Since it was notified on 8th October,
2010, and L.I.C. didn’t inform me the date of the Wage Revision Notification or
its intention to deprive the Class 1 Officers of their legitimate dues, on
account of retirement, in the intervening period, when I sent the notice of
resignation dt. 2nd April 2010, I am aggrieved. This decision goes
against the Principles of Natural Justice
and fair-play. Had I been informed, I would have postponed my decision to
resign then. I would have got the Arrears’ payment too. My resignation letter could also have been kept
pending for approval/acceptance by LIC of India, if its intentions were
honorable. (Kindly note that my Representation letter dated 18-10-2010, for
payment of Arrears and Difference in Retirement Benefits was kept pending for a
reply, by LIC of India; for eight long months!)
L.I.C. of
India is unnecessarily discriminating between the resigning employees and the
Voluntarily resigning employees.
The Provident
Fund rules also allow the P.F. account of a resigning employee to be transferred
to the new employer. They recognize the fact that talented and dynamic
employees are an asset to any organization and galvanize economic growth of the
nation by opting to switch jobs and contributing their services in various
fields. In this light, L.I.C.’s Human Resource Development policies appear
outdated and orthodox. Besides, since wages are a fundamental right of any
employee in service, as per the Labour laws and the Constitution
of India, L.I.C’s recommendations to the Central Government and the Finance
Ministry’s Wage Revision Notification dt. 8th October, 2010 and the Wage Revision Notification dt. 11-10-2010,
applicable to Class -1 Officers of the Corporation; are flawed and biased. They go against the Principles of Natural
Justice.
9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:
1.I am not at all satisfied with the replies
of the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority.
The CPIO, Mr. K. Rajivan Nair has tried to
intimidate me and dissuade me from pursuing my RTI Appeal by personally calling
me up on 14-04-2012 and warning me that I would
only be the loser, in this RTI Appeal as well as in any Court of Law in India. He told me to
consider his telephone call made to me from the office landline number as being
“Off the record”, spoke in a condescending and mocking tone and went on to make
some very objectionable remarks, as follows:
He said that he was disturbed as I had asked for
the penalty to be levied on him as per rules of the RTI Act of 2005, for not
replying to all my RTI queries.
When I told
him that I had full faith in the RTI process and would pursue the matter till
the end, he said that I should instead file a case in a Court of law, as LIC
would not answer any of my questions. He said that “asking for answers from LIC
is like breaking your head against a wall. LIC will not answer any of your remaining
questions. We do not want to open a Pandora’s Box by replying to your
questions.” He also further stated that it would be of no use if I filed a case
in the Court as I would surely lose the case. He said, “If you are supposedly
going to get Rs.50,000/- as Arrears payment and you spend Rs.50,000/- on
pleading your case, what is the use of filing a case?” He has thus assumed that
LIC of India, the Public Authority in
this case, is only right and that even
the Courts of Justice will side it only. This is a very biased, presumptuous
and arrogant attitude. It is detrimental to the perception of the citizens of
India that the judicial system is unbiased, impartial and fair. In my opinion, his remarks amount to
Contempt of Court. He also told me that my RTI
Appeal would be ‘closed’ within two months’ time, which in my opinion, is again
presumptuous.
He also said that he does not have enough staff in
his department to work on obtaining the replies to my RTI queries. He said that
there is no separate department in LIC of India to deal exclusively with the
RTI queries!
I told him that I didn’t want to speak with him
orally, but definitely wanted the replies to all my RTI queries in writing
only.
2.This clearly indicates that LIC is deliberately
not giving proper replies to my RTI queries in spite of having the requisite
information. In the respect of many queries, LIC has not replied by quoting
that the information asked for cannot be revealed under Section 2(f) of the RTI
Act. LIC has deliberately misinterpreted this Section of the Act.
Since I have worked in LIC, I know its functioning
thoroughly. All the information pertaining to its operations are prepared on a
Monthly, Quarterly, Half-yearly and Yearly basis by the Branch Offices, the
operating units; and then forwarded to the Divisional Offices, which compile
them and send all such reports to the Zonal Offices, which further compile them
and forward them to the Central Office in Mumbai. Hence the consolidated
statements of all the branch offices of LIC of India, Divisional Offices of LIC
of India and Zonal offices of LIC of India and the statements pertaining to the
Departments of the Central Office of LIC of India; are available in the Central
Office of LIC of India.
********************************************************************************
*Kindly note the following question-wise details
pertaining to the decision letter dt. 21-04-2012, received from the FAA in reply
to my First Appeal dt. 23-03-2012:
Q.nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 (partly) and 19 have not been
answered on the ground that these are not ‘records’. I have asked for
information about the Life Insurance Corporation of India, that is the
Corporation as a whole, in several questions and the FAA has deliberately
answered only with respect to the Western Zonal Office of LIC of India.
The FAA has stated in answer to my query no. 3 that
“the RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.
Definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such
material available in the records of the public authority.”
The RTI act, 2005 pertains not only to records, but
to any kind of information that the appellant wants to know. LIC is just
playing around with words and evading a clear-cut reply.
Kindly note that the Western Zonal Office and the
Central Office of LIC of India are LOCATED ON THE SAME PREMISES i.e. LIC of
India, J.B. Marg, Yogakshema Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Hence the
claim by LIC that it doesn’t have the requisite information asked by me in
questions numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, is not true.
Section 2 i)
of the RTI Act, 2005 has been deliberately misinterpreted by the FAA.
Q nos. 5 and 6 pertained to cases filed by
employees whose Arrears payments were repudiated, against LIC of India. This
refers to the Corporation as a whole. The FAA has deliberately given an
incomplete reply and referred only to the WZO and not to the Corporation as a
whole. The answers to these queries can be easily obtained from the Legal
Department of the Central Office, located in the same premises.
Q no. 9 also asked why LIC is repudiating arrears’
payment, legitimately due to its resigning employees, as part of the question
no. 9; again section 2 f) has been wrongly invoked by the FAA to evade a reply.
Kindly note:
Rule 4
of the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates the Obligations of the Public Authority as
follows:
4, 1 (c) publish all relevant facts while formulating
important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;
(d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi
judicial decisions to
affected persons.
Since I am the affected person, I have a right to
know the reason.
Kindly note the following excerpt from the
provisions of the RTI Act, 2005:
10. Severability.—
(1) Where a request for access to information is
rejected on the
ground that it is in relation to information which
is exempt from
disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, access
may be provided to that part of the record which
does not contain any
information which is exempt from disclosure under
this Act and which
can reasonably be severed from any part that
contains exempt
information.
Kindly note the following excerpt from the
provisions of the RTI Act, 2005:
4. Obligations
of public authorities:
(1) Every public authority shall—
(a) maintain all its records duly catalogued and
indexed in a manner
and the form which facilitates the right to
information under this Act and
ensure that all records that are appropriate to be
computerised are,
within a reasonable time and subject to
availability of resources,
computerised and connected through a network all
over the country on
different systems so that access to such records is
facilitated;
(b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from
the enactment
of this Act,--
(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions
and duties;
(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and
employees;
(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making
process,
including channels of supervision and
accountability.
Q no. 10 The answer is incorrect and misleading. I
have asked for the details of the exact legal provisions and clauses, not
references to the Gazette. Obviously, I wanted an answer based on the provisions
of the Constitution of India and Labour Laws applicable in India currently; which
would have been taken into account by LIC of India and the Central Government
while amending the Gazette.
Rule 4
of the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates the Obligations of the Public Authority as
follows:
4, 1 (c) publish
all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the
decisions which affect public;
(d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi
judicial decisions to
affected persons.
Q. no. 12 of my RTI Application has not been
answered. Kindly note that this information is available at the click of a
button in the highly computerized records of LIC of India. Hence, the reply by
the FAA, the Zonal Manager WZO; of LIC of India, is incorrect.
Q. no. 15 asked for documents pertaining to the
Board Meetings of LIC of India wherein this resolution to repudiate arrears of
resigning employees; had been taken. A copy of the Minutes of the Meetings with
signatures of all the attending members was asked for, by me. The reply given
by the FAA is entirely misleading. He has deliberately misinterpreted my
question. I have not received the copy of the Minutes of the Meetings with
signatures of all the attending members.
Rule 4
of the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates the Obligations of the Public Authority as
follows:
Rule 4,
(1) b (viii) “a statement of the boards, councils, committees and
other bodies consisting of two or more persons
constituted
as its part or for the purpose of its advise, and
as to whether
meetings of those boards, councils, committees and
other
bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of
such
meetings are accessible for public.”
4, 1 (c) publish all relevant facts while formulating
important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;
(d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi
judicial decisions to
affected persons.
Since I am the affected person, I have a right to
access these documents.
Q.no. 16 asked for an explanation regarding the
delay in replying to my representation letter for Arrears’ Payment; from LIC of
India. Since I am the aggrieved person, I am entitled to at least a proper
explanation for the inordinate delay in LIC’s reply. Besides, as per rules, LIC
must reply to a representation from its employee within three months’ time.
Rule 4
of the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates the Obligations of the Public Authority as
follows:
4 1.d) provide
reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to
affected persons.
Since I am the affected person, I am entitled to an
answer to this query.
Q.no.17 Incomplete information has been provided. I
have not received the copy of the Wage Revision Notification dt. 11-10-2010,
applicable to Class -1 officers of the Corporation. The CPIO had sent the
Class-1 Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of service) Rules, 1985 with
a hand-written note, (updated up to 31-07-2007).
A copy of the Life Insurance Corporation of India
Class- 1 Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Amendment
Rules, 2010 has not been given to me by the CPIO.
Q no. 20 asking for factors due to which the Wage
Revision Charter is delayed inordinately, every time that it is legitimately
due; was misinterpreted by the FAA. Section 2 f) has again been wrongly invoked
by the FAA while replying to this question.
The answer to this question is crucial, because if
the Wage Revision Charter had been notified on 1st August, 2007 itself, which
was the actual date of implementation of the Wage Revision Notification; I’d
have got the Wage Arrears’ Payment and other dues and difference in retirement
benefits paid to me at enhanced rates as per the Charter’s provisions. I was on
LIC’s pay roll on 1st August, 2007.
Rule 4
of the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates the Obligations of the Public Authority as
follows:
4, 1 (c) publish all relevant facts while formulating
important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;
(d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi
judicial decisions to
affected persons.
Since I am the affected person, I have a right to get
an answer to this question.
Q no. 21 b) which asked for a rationale, by me,
should be answered as I am an aggrieved person and have a right to know the
reason for the same. If a reason is not given by LIC of India, then it will be
an arbitrary decision. (I am sure that it is not an arbitrary decision.) I
don’t see any harm in divulging the same, by LIC of India.
Rule 4
of the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates the Obligations of the Public Authority as
follows:
4, 1 (c) publish all relevant facts while formulating
important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;
(d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi
judicial decisions to
affected persons.
Since I am the affected person, I have a right to
get an answer to this question.
Q no. 21 c) asked by me did not want an
“interpretation of Labour Laws” as stated by the FAA, but a reply from LIC of
India about the basis on which their decision to repudiate Arrears’ Payment to
resigning employees has been made.
Rule 4
of the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates the Obligations of the Public Authority as
follows:
4, 1 (c) publish all relevant facts while formulating
important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;
(d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi
judicial decisions to
affected persons.
This query could have been answered by a simple
“Yes” or “No”. Obviously the FAA is reluctant to give an honest reply and has
hence given a misleading reply by deliberately misinterpreting the query.
Since I am the affected person,
I have a right to get an answer to this question.
3.Thus I have not
received all the answers to the queries
asked, in my R.T.I.application
dt. 11-02-2012 . (Question
Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (partly), 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 b) and 21 c)
have not been answered properly and correctly.)
4.Many other resigning employees like me, have been
deprived of the difference in wages due to the Wage Revision Notification dated
08th October, 2010. We have also been deprived of the difference in
the Retirement Benefits like Provident Fund and Gratuity and other dues payable
to us due to the Wage Revision as per the said Notification.
****************************************************************************
*All the information in LIC of India is fully computerized
and is available, but LIC of India does not want to part with the information.
I don’t see any logic in its evasive attitude. I also find it extremely hard to
believe that such important information as the names and other details of
resigning employees have not been collated. If the names and other details of
new recruitments can be maintained by LIC, they must be surely maintaining the
details of the resigning employees too.
Besides,
since huge amounts have been repudiated by LIC in respect of the Arrears
Payments due to such resigning employees since 1st August 1997,
surely the total of this amount will appear in the Balance Sheet of LIC of
India, (as a Liability, if it’s payable) or a Written-off Payment. (if it’s not
payable at all and treated as an Asset). The Annexures to the Balance Sheet
will surely contain the detailed information of the names of the resigning
employees, other relevant details and the amounts repudiated in respect of each
one of them. This will be required by the Inspectors and Auditors of LIC of
India.
This negative attitude of such an esteemed Public
Authority like the LIC of India shows that it doesn’t care about the welfare of
its former employees, who have put in long and distinguished years in the sincere
service of the Corporation and does not even respect them.
The ‘internal public’ of the Life Insurance Corporation
of India is the employees and the ‘external public’ is the policy-holders and
the other stake holders. In my opinion, by repudiating the payment of the Wage
Revision Arrears, and other dues and Retirement Benefits payable on Wage
Revision; to the resigning employees, LIC of India has committed a gross
miscarriage of justice and breach of their faith in their ex-employer.
*******************************************************************************
10. Any other information in support of appeal:
1.My letter dt. 18-10-2010 addressed to the
Executive Director (Personnel) and my letter dt.20-11-2010 addressed to the Chairman
appealing for payment of Arrears and Difference in Retirement Benefits were not
acknowledged or replied to, by the said addressees. Kindly note
that as per rules, I was entitled to a reply within three months’ time. The Public Authority (LIC of India)
could have exercised its discretion
and even sanctioned the payment of the arrears to me, but
didn’t even bother to acknowledge my letter and subsequent e-mails for as long
as eight months! Hence I was compelled to file this RTI Appeal. Again, evasive
and unsatisfactory replies were given by the CPIO and the First Appellate
Authority, with indirect intimidation. They didn’t even acknowledge
receipt of my RTI Application and First Appeal, even after reading my written
request in both these letters.
Since I was
in service on the date from which the Wage Revision Notification is applicable,
that is 1st August 2007, I am legally entitled to get all my dues
from this date to 02-07-2010, the date of my resignation and hence the last day
of my service in L.I.C. of India.
I must be paid this entire amount along with
interest w.e.f. 01-08-2007 till date, at the prevailing rates, as per rules.
I have worked hard, with the utmost sincerity and
loyalty, in L.I.C. of India for eighteen and a half years and have still not
joined any Private Insurance Company due to my deep-rooted loyalty towards
L.I.C. of India.
I must be given justice.
Kindly note, that as per the
letter dt. 09-03-2012, received from the CPIO, in the reply to my
Question No. 3, WZO employees who have resigned from L.I.C. of India and were
denied the arrears’ payment under the Charter dt. 11th October,
2010; my name is not mentioned at all, though I was an employee under the WZO,
working in Pune D.O.1. That itself shows that I am entitled to the arrears’
payment under the Charter dt. 11th October,
2010.
11. Prayer/relief sought for:
1.I should be paid all the dues that are payable to
me on account of the Wage Revision, as per the Wage Revision Notification dt. 11th October,
2010 (Applicable for Class-1 Officers of LIC of India) and the
difference in Retirement Benefits like Provident Fund and Gratuity as well as
other dues as per rules of service; with interest
w.e.f. 01-08-2007 till date of actual settlement, at the
prevailing rates, as per rules; by L.I.C.of India.
2.I should be refunded the entire amount of Rs. 1000/- with
interest at the prevailing rates, in respect of the amount that I’ve spent on
this R.T.I. Application and its follow-up; by L.I.C. of India.
3.The CPIO, Mr. K. Rajivan Nair, Regional
Manager (CRM/CPIO) should be fined Rs. 25,000/- and the
First Appellate Authority, Mr. R. R. Dash, Zonal Manager
(WZO)/Appellate Authority;
should be fined for the requisite no. of days as
per the RTI Act, 2005 rules, for not
providing all the information asked for, in my RTI Application dt. 11-02-2012; as
per Section 20 of the R.T.I.Act, 2005. They have not
provided all the information sought by me, till date.
4. Censure and Disciplinary
action against the CPIO, Mr. K. Rajivan Nair, Regional
Manager (CRM/CPIO) and the FAA,
Mr. R. R. Dash, Zonal Manager (WZO)/Appellate Authority;
as per rules of the RTI
Act, 2005.
5. I should receive all
the answers to the queries asked, in my
R.T.I.application
dt. 11-02-2012.
12. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:
I have worked hard, with the utmost sincerity and
loyalty, in L.I.C. of India for eighteen and a half years and have still not
joined any Private Insurance Company due to my deep-rooted loyalty towards
L.I.C. of India.
I must be given justice.
The Life Insurance Corporation of India must
respect all its employees and not deprive or conspire to deprive them of their
hard-earned, legally rightful dues.
It must not accord differential treatment to its
various classes of employees.
It must respond quickly to its employees’ queries/representations/appeals.
It must overhaul and update its H.R.D. policies.
It must maintain utmost integrity, accountability
and transparency in all its activities.
The R.T.I.Act must be given its rightful respect
and its sanctity must be maintained at all costs.
The Public Authority, LIC of India, and its
designated functionaries, the CPIO and the FAA must uphold the
dignity of their Office and maintain integrity, accountability
and transparency. They must also uphold the vision of the
R.T.I. Act, 2005 and not abuse their authority. They must be
more prompt, responsible and co-operative,
so that everyone’s (the Appellant’s, their own and the C.I.C’s) time, money and
efforts are not wasted.
13. Personal Presence at hearing: No
14. Declaration:
I hereby state that the information and particulars
given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I
also declare that this matter is not previously filed with this Commission nor
is pending with any Court or Tribunal or Authority.
Place: Pune-411021
Date: 13-06-2012
No comments:
Post a Comment