Wednesday, 13 August 2014

The CIC's first decision dated 4th January, 2013



                                                  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/2012/001390
Appellant /Complainant                                :               Mrs. Priya Ramesh Swaminathan, Pune(Maharashtra)
Public Authority                                                :               LIC of India, Mumbai
                                                                                (Sh. Rajivan Nair, CPIO & Ms T.S.Hindoyar, RM-
Through videoconferencing)
Date of Hearing                                :               04 January 2013
Date of Decision                              :               04 January 2013
Facts:-
1.                         Appellant submitted his RTI application dated 11 February 2012 before the CPIO, LIC of India, Mumbai seeking information in respect of the reasons for repudiation of Appellant’s arrears payment and retirement benefits during the wage revision payment through multiple points. Enclosed Herewith As Annexure A.
2.                         Vide CPIO’s Order dated 9 March 2012, CPIO provided point wise partial information to the Appellant.
3.                         Not satisfied with the reply, the Appellant preferred first Appeal dated 23 March
2012 to the First Appellant Authority.
4.                         Vide FAA Order dated 21 April 2012, CPIO’s order was upheld.
       5.                      Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by the above response of the public
authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
6.                     Matter was heard today via videoconferencing from Mumbai where respondent as above were present.  Appellant was heard from Pune.

Decision notice
7.                          After hearing both parties Commission directs the CPIO, to forward as per the provisions of section 6  (3) of the Act, points 3, 15, and 21 to the CPIO, Central Office within
five days of receipt of the order.  The CPIO, Central Office is directed to provide information
as per the provisions of the Act in respect of points 3 and 15 of the RTI application.  In
respect of point 21, the CPIO, Central  office will 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.
8.                      Information to be provided within three weeks of receipt of the RTI application from
the CPIO, Western zonal office.
9.                      In respect of information sought vide point 21(a) of the Act, CPIO submits that he has already provided the appellant with a copy of the latest rules of 2010 pertaining to Class
       I officers of the Corporation including the rules governing wage revision.  Appellant states that    
      she has not received the same.  Accordingly CPIO is directed to provide this information
      to her once again within one week of receipt of the order.


(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
                                                                                                                                  Information Commissioner (DS)
Authenticated true copy:

(T.K. Mohapatra)
Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar
Tel. No.011-26105027
                  
                                                                                                                  Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/001390
***************************************************************************************************************


Kindly note that the IC had directed the CPIO, WZO to forward the entire RTI application to the Central Office but directed only 3 questions from my RTI application to be replied  by the CPIO, Central Office. I had asked 21 questions. The IC felt that the CPIO was being burdened by my questions and that he, in the IC's words, "was not a postman who would get all the answers and provide them to me!" She further told me to write to the other departments concerned, without considering my expenses and difficulty. When I pointed it out to her that it was impossible for me to write to so many offices of the Corporation, she asked me to take to social media like Twitter and Facebook to get my answers regarding names and other details of the resigning employees who had not been paid the arrears by the Corporation!
I even mentioned in the hearing that I had been mocked by the CPIO, WZO in his "Off the Record" telephone call made by him to me, from the Zonal Office's landline number. She asked him about it and he brazenly declared "Have I ever spoken to you?" to which I immediately told him that he was lying. (I had already confirmed from the Mumbai Telephone Exchange and confirmed that the said call had been made from the Corporation's Zonal Office's landline number.) The IC then told him to be more transparent (in his dealings) in future.
Obviously, a very erroneous picture had been given about my application to  the IC, by the CPIO, WZO as she felt that I had a very negative attitude as I had asked for the CPIO and the FAA to be penalized as per provisions of the RTI Act for not answering my questions.
When I explained the magnitude of the case, in public interest, to her; she understood it.
    

     

No comments:

Post a Comment