Public authorities are not obligated to provide information that is not part of their maintained records under the RTI Act.

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. Notional fitment chart under grant of computer increment till retirement

2. Actual received increments year wise since November 1993 to till retirement in chart.

3. Revised gratuity payment order as per last salary scale – V Satyaveer Singh Bank ID No. 3019

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

1. Your fitment of the applicant under grant of computer increment was done by concern erstwhile RRB before amalgamation of RMGB.

Due to the amalgamation of various Regional Rural Banks from time to time, the sought information is not compiled/maintained.

2. The letter regarding increment/stagnation for each year issued to you has been made available to you from time to time.

3. The sought information is not clear and specific, hence does not form Information within the provisions of Sec. 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005 .

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 14.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Rajeev Singh, Chief Manager Vigilance, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that sought information had not been provided by the CPIO, stating that the fitment chart was not available. He alleged that the fitment chart and other related records, as sought, are available in the file but the respondent is not willing to provide.

7. The respondent, while defending their case, reaffirmed their earlier response dated 24.10.2024 and submitted that all relevant available information had been furnished to the appellant. On being queried, the respondent submitted that the fitment chart had already been provided in the year 2021, by the then Bank i.e Anjali Bank before amalgamation, however, the fitment chart is mentioned by the respondent bank, hence, the same has not been provided. Further, sought information on point no. 2, had also been provided to the appellant time to time. A written submission dated nil of the respondent has been taken on record.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the appellant vide letter dated 24.10.2024. The respondent clarified during the hearing that the fitment chart is not maintained by them, hence, the same cannot be provided. In this regard, the appellant’s attention is drawn towards the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay &ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011), dated 09.08.2011. The following was held:-

“35……… But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant……………”

9. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter.