Jump to content
karira

Details of Husbands pension account deniable to wife

Recommended Posts

karira

In a recent decision, CIC has agreed with the PIO of a bank in denying the information related to pension account of the Husband.

This information was needed by the wife for a maintenance case.

 

Surprisingly, the order of the IC is a one line order:

 

Decision Notice

6. The Commission accepts the CPIO’s submission. The appeal is disposed of.

 

 

The full order is attached to this post.

Pension account details of husband denied to wife.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Is this not contrary to earlier decision, wherein wife was permitted information, had the bank followed third party clause. IS there no way, if a wife wants to know the pension (from treasury). There are hundred and one ways to get information, (remember recemt defense secrets through face book introductions) but why through these decisions CIC make people to go for corruption and they are aware that if wife wants she can get information afterwards even through court for authentication. (even if a peon in a bank can get information, but only thing is it can not be authentic unless it is sought from Court or Bank(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

This is contrary to earlier decisions as spouse not third party if marriage subsists.

 

 

Sent from RTI INDIA Mobile App

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • humhongeykamyaab
      By humhongeykamyaab
      Hi,
      Need some clarity on how to draft the RTI for the information asked; Alternatively, please advice what other course of action to pursue?
       
      Background:-
      Case of Illegal Recovery of Pension by Public Sector Bank  (thereafter referred as PSB)
      1) The PSB, the pension disbursal bank mistakenly overpaid the pension to the pensioner for 10 years;
      2) No connivance or misrepresentation from the Pensioner; solely a mistake done by the Bank. 
      The over payment was detected via a CAG Audit, and the mistake of the bank as well was pointed out in the same audit
      3)Now the PSB has started recovering the Pension since last 3 years, illegally.
      4)No recovery order or show cause notice has been ever issued to the Pensioner by the bank or any competent authority
      5)This recovery is illegal as per Apex Court judgement on Rafiq Masih's Case- 
      which states that no recovery can be done after 5 years of continual overpayment
      6) The Pensioner has been forced to go to the court to seek redressal. Case is stuck in the court for the last 3 years
      An RTI Was filed in May 2018/ Information sought and response received are as under:-
      Q-2) Provide the list of all officials and their designation who dealt with this pension matter during Dec 2006 to Dec 2007 at CPPC and PSB Branch
      Q-3) Name the officer who responsible for sanctioning the excess pension
      Q-5) Please provide number of cases in your bank wherein excess amount of pension is being recovered
      Response received (for all three questions, above) from CPIO: As informed by the Branch Manager of your branch : Information is not available
      Q-4) Name the officer who is recovering my excess pension
      Response received : The excess pension has been detected by the Performance Audit Team  under CAG and adviced via audit memo 36 dated XX 
                           to recover the amount of 10 Lakhs which is over paid since  1. 1. 2007. As such bank is recovering now and refunding the authority.
      My Comment on Q-4:
      It doesn't give the name of the officer who is recovering excess. Plus: The Audit Memo from CAG does not talk about recovery at- all. This has also
      been mentioned in the affidavit by the pension sanctioning authority in the court where it states that CAG has not issued any order of recovery. So this response is misleading.
      Unfortunately I was not able to file the First Appeal to the above response.
      Should I file another RTI ? Is re-drafting of the questions needed? The bank is hell bent on shielding its errant officials and protecting them.  Please feel free to advise me on any other course of action as deemed fit. 
      Thank You,
      Andy
       
    • ganpat1956
      By ganpat1956
      A Supreme Court lawyer has moved the Central Information Commission seeking information on the procedure of the recruitment of class III and IV employees in the Delhi High Court after it was denied by its administration.
       
      Advocate Kamini Jaiswal approached the CIC contending that orders of the High Court Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer (First Appellate Authority) refusing to part away with the information was a violation of the Right to Information Act and also her Fundamental Rights.
       
      She alleged that information had been denied for erroneous reasons and none of the exemption available under Section 8 of the Act allows the authority not to part away with the information sought.
       
      The lawyer had filed the application before the Public Information Officier on September 22, 2006 seeking information regarding number of class III and class IV employees recruited by the Court from the year 1990 to 2006 and the procedure followed for their recruitment.
       
      The High Court PIO while denying the information held that information pertaining to those decisions which were taken administratively or quasi-judicially would be available only to the affected parties.
       
      The lawyer then approached Appellate Authority challenging the PIO order contending that the High Court (Right to information) Rules were inconsistent with the provision of the Right to Information Act and it should be held void.
       
      But the Appellate Authority refused to accept the contention of the lawyer and dismissed her appeal. Now the lawyer has moved Central Information Commission against this order.
       
      CIC moved on recruitment procedure of High Court .:. NewKerala.Com, India News Channel

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy