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