Thursday, 24 July 2014

Reply by the CPIO (WZO) LIC of India dt. 9th March, 2012







                                                                                                                    

Dt. 23rd March, 2012
To,
Shri R. R. Dash
Zonal Manager,
Appellate Authority,
L.I.C. of India
Western Zonal Office,
Yogakshema  Building,
Mumbai-400021
Respected Sir,                                                       FIRST APPEAL
                               Subject: First Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005
 Reference: Information recd. from CPIO/WZO on 14-03-2012, vide letter dt. 09-03-2012 under ref. WZO/CPIO/RTI/145 dt.09-03-2012; in response to my RTI Application dt. 11-02-2012 ) 
         I, the undersigned, request you to accept my first appeal to you on account of denial of information, incomplete, inaccurate and misleading information provided to me by Shri K. Rajivan Nair, Regional Manager CRM/CPIO/WZO in response to my RTI application dated 11-03-2012, vide his letter dt. 09-03-2012 recd. by me on 14-03-2012.
                Kindly note the following question- wise details to ascertain the veracity of my allegation that the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate and misleading and has not been provided at all, in respect of many of my requests:

                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.  INCOMPLETE REPLY
                The reply was given in respect of only WZO employees, whereas I have clearly asked for all the details of employees of LIC of India, which is the Corporation as a whole. Even the information given in the reply is incomplete as the details about the addresses, etc. have not been mentioned.
                 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. INCOMPLETE REPLY
                   The reply is incomplete as I had asked for the Corporation’s details as mentioned in     3) above and not only of the Western Zonal Office.
        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.   INFORMATION NOT GIVEN AT ALL
                 The reply given by the CPIO that ‘the information is not available with us’ is not acceptable, as it is his duty to procure the information asked for by the appellant and provide the same to him/her, in this particular case; to me.
               6.What was the outcome of the case as in (5) above?  Documentary proof to be provided by the LIC of India.   INFORMATION NOT GIVEN AT ALL
                The reply given by the CPIO that ‘the information is not available with us’ is not  acceptable, as it is his duty to procure the information asked for, by the appellant and provide the same to him/her, in this particular case; to me.
               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.   INFORMATION NOT GIVEN AT ALL
The reply given by the CPIO that ‘the information is not available with us’ is not acceptable, as it is his duty to procure the information asked for, by the appellant and provide the same to him/her, in this particular case; to me.
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.   INFORMATION NOT GIVEN AT ALL
The reply given by the CPIO that ‘the information is not available with us’ is not acceptable, as it is his duty to procure the information asked for, by the appellant and provide the same to him/her, in this particular case; to me.
9.Since which year or which Charter has LIC of India started repudiating arrears’ payment legitimately due, to its resigning employees; and why? INCOMPLETE
The answer is incomplete as it does not answer the ‘why’ part of my query. As I am an aggrieved person on account of this particular rule, I am entitled to an answer.
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.
INCORRECT AND MISLEADING
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 Constitution of India and Labour Laws applicable in India currently; which would have been taken into account by LIC and the Central Government while amending the gazette.
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.
INFORMATION NOT GIVEN AT ALL
The reply given by the CPIO that ‘data not available with us’ is not acceptable, as it is his duty to procure the information asked for, by the appellant and provide the same to him/her, in this particular case; to me.
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.  MISLEADING AND INACCURATE INFORMATION
The reply given by the CPIO is unacceptable as the information asked by me has not been given by him. My question has deliberately been misinterpreted by him.
           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.    MISLEADING AND INACCURATE INFORMATION
Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 has been wrongly interpreted by the CPIO. Since I’m an aggrieved person, I’m entitled to an answer with the requisite explanation in respect of this question.
          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  INFORMATION NOT GIVEN
As on date, the website of LIC of India has not been updated and outdated information regarding my query is available therein. Besides, if I have asked for the above information through an RTI application, I am entitled to receive an answer from the CPIO.
         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.   INCOMPLETE INFORMATION
              The CPIO has given information pertaining to the Western Zonal Office only, whereas I have referred to the Corporation as a whole. Note my words in the query: ‘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?    MISLEADING AND INACCURATE INFORMATION
              The CPIO has misinterpreted Section 2 (f) of the RTI act, 2005. Since I’m an aggrieved person directly affected by the delay in the notification of the Wage Revision Charter, I’m entitled to an answer to this query.
         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.  INCOMPLETE INFORMATION
              The reply to this query is incomplete as an adequate, satisfactory explanation/rationale has not been procured and provided by the CPIO.
              c) Does this denial of arrears payment and difference in retirement benefits, agree in principle, with the labour laws applicable in India?   MISLEADING AND INACCURATE INFORMATION
Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 has been wrongly interpreted by the CPIO. Since I’m an aggrieved person, I’m entitled to an answer with the requisite explanation from the concerned authorities in respect of this question.
Relief sought: a. Kindly instruct the CPIO to provide the Certified True Copies of documents in respect of the above points numbered 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,15,16,18,19,20 and 21 through Speed Post; at the earliest. I request you to instruct him to also ensure that the documents provided by him are legible.
b. Kindly penalize the CPIO under the relevant provisions, Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005; for not providing the information as mandated in the law. Kindly note that the incomplete, inaccurate and misleading information has been recd. three days late by me, that is later than the stipulated period of thirty days. Besides, many questions have not been answered at all.    
                            I request you to kindly do the needful at the earliest and oblige.
                                                  Thanking you,
                                                                                   Yours sincerely,
                                                                                   

                                                                                Mrs. Priya R.Swaminathan

No comments:

Post a Comment