Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 6149
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
SHRINIVAS TRIMBAKRAO PHATAK – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank – Respondent
CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/632750
Hypothetical queries do not constitute 'information' under the Right to Information Act, limiting the scope for intervention by the Commission.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(f) - Information sought regarding grievances, pension effects, address change, and salary details - The CPIO provided responses but was challenged by the Appellant for being incomplete - The First Appellate Authority upheld the response, indicating adequate information was provided. (Paras 1.2, 2.1, 5)
(B) Hypothetical Queries - The Commission noted that the queries raised were hypothetical and not covered under the definition of 'information' in the RTI Act, thus limiting the scope for intervention. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant filed multiple RTI applications seeking information on grievance redressal, pension status, address changes, and salary details, leading to responses from the CPIO and subsequent appeals due to dissatisfaction with the provided information.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that adequate information had been provided by the respondents and upheld the First Appellate Authority's order.
Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of information provided and the nature of the queries being hypothetical rather than factual.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that hypothetical queries fall outside the scope of 'information' as defined under the RTI Act, and the responses given were sufficient.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/632903 1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) “I wish to know from you sir what steps have been taken by CO Nasik to address my grievance referred to there in. And what is the procedure to be adopted by me, if the CO Nasik does pay my claims without assigning any reason for non- payment.
(ii) I have requested in the past vide my mails dated 25.03.2023 Seeking Guidance on effects on my pension, due to stagnation increments wef 01.11.2020 only for the purpose of pension. I want to know the status of action taken by CO Nasikin that matter.
(iii) I have made requests to please change my permanent address and address for correspondence in HRMS together with copy of Adhar Card attached with the request letter vide mails dated 15.01.2022, 19.04.2022 and 01.04.2023. I am unable to know as to why my address is not being changed. I wish to know the reason ((s) for the same, reason may please be provided to me.
(iv) I want all the details of my salary, pension (Basic pension and DA relief) and arrears of salary/ pension paid by bank to me from the period from March 2016 to till the date. This data is required for calculation of arrears of Officiating Allowance, arrears of terminal dues and of course arrears of pension till the date.”
1.2 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
(i) Branch has calculated the interest on your Overdraft account and it came to light that Rs. 7375.44 have to be recovered from you as interest applied on your Overdraft is on concessional rate. However in case of staff concessional rate is applicable upto amount Rs. 10.00 lakhs and above Rs. 10.00 lakhs interest at public rate is applicable.
(ii) Copy of FDR receipt No. 038600PU0047252 is attached with this letter as Annexure 1.
(iii) Please specify the type of FD and tenure of FD for which the Rate of Interest is required.
(iv) In terms of Schedule I of Maharashtra Stamp Act as amended upto 01 June 2022, Article 6 (2) (b), Agreement relating to Deposit of title deeds, pawn, pledge or hypothecation, where amount exceeds Rs. 5.00 lakhs, stamp duty @ 0.3% of the amount secured by such deed subject to maximum of Rs. 20.00 lakhs is applicable Further in terms of Article 6 (3), the instrument falling under this article when executed as collateral or auxillary or additional security and where the proper duty has been paid on the principal or primary security under this article, stamp duty to be paid on other instruments shall be Rs. 500/-
1.3 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.05.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 01.07.2023 while upholding the reply given by the CPIO, gave additional calculation details to the appellant.
1.4 Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.07.2023 CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/632750 2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) I wish to know from you sir what steps have been taken by CO Nasik to address my grievance referred to there in. And what is the procedure to be adopted by me, if the CO Nasik does pay my claims without assigning any reason for non-
payment.
(ii) I have requested in the past vide my mails dated 25.03.2023 Seeking Guidance on effects on my pension, due to stagnation increments wef 01.11.2020 only for the purpose of pension. I want to know the status of action taken by CO Nasikin that matter.
(iii) I have made requests to please change my permanent address and address for correspondence in HRMS together with copy of Adhar Card attached with the request letter vide mails dated 15.01.2022, 19.04.2022 and 01.04.2023. I am unable to know as to why my address is not being changed. I wish to know the reason ((s) for the same, reason may please be provided
