Monday, 18 August 2014

CIC's Decision dated 21st February, 2014



                              Central Information Commission
                     Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
                                                    Telefax:011-26180532 & 011-26107254 Website-cic.gov.in
                                         Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000662/MP
Appellant /Complainant  :           Mrs. Priya Ramesh Swaminathan, Pune
Public Authority                           :           LIC of India, Mumbai
Date of Hearing              :           21 February 2014
Date of Decision                         :           21 February 2014
Facts:-
 1.        While disposing of the RTI application dated 11 February 2013 submitted by the appellant, Mrs. Priya Ramesh Swaminathan, in case No. CIC/DS/A/2012/001390 decided on 4 January 2013, Central Information Commission (CIC) had directed the CPIO, LIC of India, Western Zonal Office, Mumbai to forward as per the provisions of section 6 (3) of the Act, points 3, 15 and 21 of the RTI application to the CPIO, Central Office within five days of receipt of the order and the CPIO, Central office was directed to provide information as per the provisions of the Act in respect of points 3, and 15 of RTI application.  In respect of point 21, in the CPIO, Central Office was asked to provide a copy of the file notings, made while formulating recommendations of LIC regarding wage revision before sending the final proposals to the Ministry of Finance along with their recommendations thereon.
2.          In compliance of above mentioned order, the CPIO considered the matter and vide order dated 06 February 2013, CPIO, Central Office denied the information on point No. 3, on the ground that the information was not maintained at a central location and the data, in the format asked by the appellant, further, such data is not needed for normal, routine and regular administrative working of the Corporation, hence information couldn’t be provided as “record” as defined under Section 2(i) and “information” as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, is not maintained in the format as desired by RTI applicant, but by going with spirit of the RTI Act, CPIO furnished certain information; furnished information on point No. 15 and again denied information on point no. 21 on the ground that the file notings regarding wage revision recommendations of the LIC do not exist, hence information couldn’t be provided as the “record” as defined under Section 2(i) and “information” as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.  However, for both queries no. 15 & 21, keeping in view of the spirit of the RTI Act, further information consisting of 20 pages had been furnished to the appellant.  Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 19 February 2013, to the First Appellate Authority (FAA).  Vide order dated 15 March 2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision while further clarifying the CPIO’s order and also advised the appellant that for redressal of her grievance she should approach the appropriate forum and RTI was not a not platform for grievance redressal.  FAA also advised the appellant to approach the Central Information Commission by way of second appeal if she was not satisfied by his order.
3.       Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4.       The matter was heard today via videoconferencing.  The appellant, Ms. Priya Ramesh Swamination was present at the hearing and made submissions from Pune.  The respondents, Shri T.R. Mehndiratta, FAA, Ms. Mallika Prasad, Secretary (RTI) and Ms. Mina Bidikakar, made submissions from Mumbai.
5.        The appellant submitted that complete information has not been provided by the CPIO despite CIC’s previous order dated 4/1/2013.  The reasons for the repudiation of arrears of Ex LIC employees and the minutes of the meetings details have not been provided.  She maintained that the Central Office Mumbai is the holder of information as all representations of appointments and resignations from all over India are sent to the Central Offices, Mumbai for approval.  Hence, LIC employees’ information sought need only be taken out from the database maintained by the Central Office bases on the information received from offices located all over India.
6.        The respondents submitted that the information as held with Central Office, Mumbai pertaining to list of 40 people had been provided to the appellant.  The appellant may approach the other Divisional Offices and Zonal Offices of the LIC all over India who are the holders of the information as the appointments are made by the DO and ZO levels also and the resignations are also accepted by various appointing authorities.  Further no additional information is available w.r.t points 3, 15, and 21 of the RTI Application.  They added that as per LIC Rules, employees who resign are not entitled to get arrears.
Decision Notice
7.         The Commission accepts the respondents’ position that it would have been difficult to collect and provide the information to the appellant from all the Divisional Offices and Zonal Offices as it would divert the limited resources of the public authority.
8.        The Commission after hearing the respondents upholds the CPIOs order that complete information as held by them has been provided to the appellant.
9.        However, the CPIO is directed to provide the copy of minutes of the meetings in which the agenda was put up for repudiation of arrears of the LIC employees who had resigned from service within two weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission.  Only relevant portion of the minutes is to be provided to the appellant. 
10.        The CPIO is further directed to provide an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the appellant that no further information other than what is provided to her with reference to points 3, 15, and 21 of RTI application is available with them.  The affidavit is to be submitted within two weeks of the receipt of the order.

                                                                                                                 Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:

(T.K. Mohapatra)
Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar,
Tel. No. 011-26105027
************************************************************************************
 Kindly note the point number 7 above. 

I wonder what resources are required by the Corporation to just click a button on one's own computer on which all the information asked for, by me; is available! (The Central Server can be readily accessed from the Central Office as well as by all the offices of the Corporation.)
 LIC has vast infra-structure, manpower, communication systems, funds, etc. It just lacks WILL-POWER and CONSCIENCE.
I have pursued this RTI application since 3 years and spent a considerable portion of my meager funds on the same. Even I don't have unlimited resources to keep on writing to all the offices of the Corporation. Probably, I will need to be reborn at least a 1000 times to get answers from all these offices, as it took me 3 years to get just a fraction of the answers from just 2 offices of the Corporation!

 A board proudly proclaims in Hindi, in most offices of the Corporation:
 "Kaarya kathin hai, is liye karne yogya hai, saadharan karya toh sabhi log karte hain!"

 Probably, that is why, I will never say die, and see to it that all of us who have been illegally denied the arrears, etc., get our rightful dues.

No comments:

Post a Comment