The Right to Information should not be misused for harassment; repetitive requests can be deemed excessive.

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2024.

The FAA vide its order dated 12.08.2024, held as under.

“On perusing the online RTI application dated 01.06.2024, the CPIO's reply dated 20.06.2024, First appeal received online dated 19.07.2024 and the response received from the Department concerned, the appellant is informed as under:

REPLY TO QUERY:

(4) Refer Annexure 6(R) under terms & conditions point (4) Remuneration which was issued at the time of engagement of FSE Scheme. Also we have provided the Annexure 6 (R) under RTI No.LICSZ/R/2009/50002 DT. 07.01.2019 & Ref:LICOI/A/2020/693977 dated 02.09.2022. Repeated query in a new version.

(5) Copy of the letter is not available at present as replied carlier.

(6) (1) & (2) Reason is not known. The queries are interrogative in nature.

(7) Registered post only.

It is pertinent to mention here that the Appellant is a habitual information seeker through the RTI applications and appeals umpteen times since the date of his exit from the Corporation i.e., January 2018. About 47 RTI applications, 42 first appeals and 26 second appeals with more than 429 queries and 499 sub queries were raised for the response by Salem Division alone besides his applications to our Central Office, Mumbai and Southern Zonal Office, Chennai. Most of the queries are of interrogative in nature and complexed with previous queries /instances. The appellant never puts his queries in the simplest form but in the form of either ambiguity or contextual. Despite having been replied appropriately to almost all the queries nevertheless his unpleasant remarks about the Corporation, we find that the queries being raised in the new applications are repetitive in nature. Apart from the RTI applications, LIC has also responded to his complaints made through Hon'ble Courts, CPGRAMS and mail communications on various occasions.

With the above information, I dispose of the appeal of Mr. V S S Krishna dated 19.07.2024.”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal against point No. 4, 5 and 6 of RTI application.

5. A written submission dated 22.08.2025 filed by Shri D. Ashok Kumar, Marketing Manager/ FAA, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Salem is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:

“Second Appeal:

Being dissatisfied with the CPIO reply and First Appellate order, the appellant preferred a Second Appeal on 28.09.2024 to the Hon'ble CIC as below:

We humbly submit before the Hon'ble CIC that:

Query Nos (4):- As a former FSE my code 0015070 in my partial tenure 09.05.2012 to 01.03.2016 for this particular you paid the remuneration to me in mode of "Consolidated payment" Yes or No?

Reply to Query No (4):- The appellant was paid remuneration as per the conditions laid down in Annexure 6R dated 08.05.2012 which sets out the terms and conditions of engagement as Financial Service Executive such as Terms of selection, Minimum Business Parameters, Remuneration, Duty Hours, Weekly Offs, Termination of Contract. As per Point 4 in Annexure 6(R), Remuneration of FSE is a fixed amount payable to him as per details given below. Accordingly, the appellant was paid fixed amount as remuneration.

In exercise of the powers vested under Clause No. 28 of LIC of India (Financial Services Executives) Scheme 2007, Chairman has issued a modified instructions on 01.07.2013 wherein the fixed remuneration shall be paid as per the bifurcation given below:

It may kindly be noted that the total remuneration has not changed.

Query Not (5): As per your under control Sallem Divisional Office-Satem RTI Reply Tot the Ref. No LICSZ/R/E/24/00040 Receipt Date: 03.04.2024 Reply Date: 23.04.2