Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/11/2019 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    dear friends. with the help and support of many of you,I could ensure a due pension to around 3200 ex Indian Naval sailors. Around 100 RTI applications,40 first appeals and 5 second appeals,during the period since 2012. I could dig out copies of orders of the GOI as old as 1976. Finally all these materials were used for our legal fight before the honorable supreme court. Even though,the SC had given a favorable judgment in 2016,the actual payment of pension has started only in 2019. The concerned authorities had diluted the SC orders in this regards, and not paid the due entitlements fully and the case is still going on. But all this we could achieve,only because of the RTI Act,and the numerous rti applications from time to time. This forum has helped me in clearing my doubts from time to time. I was lucky enough to get associated with this forum almost from the beginning. Thanks to all for providing a wonderful platform for a great cause.
  2. 4 points
    Write to him directly and seek all those success stories and stepping stones in his biography. He can definitely respond. Search in google and create a library with all those material.
  3. 3 points
    The PIO has cited the exemption of section 24(4) for denying the information requested by you. Please peruse the provision of section 24(4), the same is reproduced below: As you can see, your best chances of getting the information is, if you can show that the information sought by you pertains either to (1) allegation of corruption or (2) violation of human rights. It seems that, in the facts of your case, the information sought by you may possibly fall under the category of 'violation of human rights'. If that is the case, then you may file a first appeal before the concerned First Appellate Authority on the ground of violation of human rights, however, please note that the second proviso to section 24(4) provides that in such cases the power to disclose information lies with the State Information Commission.
  4. 3 points
    Some of you -- at least CJ Karira, who helped me years ago in one crucial step, getting SEBI to acknowledge its own circular! -- know of a 15-year quest among desi academics to get SEBI to release its stale masked FII data for academic research. At one point years ago a parliamentary query by Shyam Benegal, then Rajya Sabha MP, sought the release of this data for academic research. He then made a subsequent RTI query asking what had done about his complaint about the terrible answer he got to his parliamentary question. We thought we had succeeded when in response to that SEBI did put in public domain that FII data and promised to update. And to their credit, they did update it from time to time, even if a bit fitfully. But thanks to a question by a curious IIT-Madras undergrad, we realized that what SEBI gave with one hand they took away with another. While the idea was that the FII IDs would be masked to preserve privacy, without telling anyone, SEBI changed the masks each month, drastically reducing the value for academic research (since you can't even tell how many distinct FIIs are there in the data base, and whether anyone traded over time). It also caused mistakes in academic research since no one imagined that SEBI would use changing masks, when no other regulator or exchange on the planet does so. To get SEBI to finally agree to not hide by changing masks, but to keep a stable mask, has taken many years. But at least per the ruling received yesterday, it has been achieved, with no violence to anyone. I attach the ruling. I can also post the various submissions made at the Second Appeal hearing if there is any interest (need to scrub email-IDs, per the policy of this site). Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdfThis RTI site, in particular Karira-ji, has been very helpful to me in the course of this long episode thru countless RTI queries. And I am grateful for that from the bottom of my heart. I am confident we will see quite a few PhD dissertations using this database within the next few years. Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdf Second_Addendum_w_Appendices_29th_Feb_2020.pdf CIC-SEBIH-A-2017-139953-BJ.pdf Third_Addendum to Additional Submission for RTI Second Appeal_2nd_March_2020.pdf To_CIC_2nd_appeal_27th_February_2020_Redacted.pdf Draft_Talking_Points_for_the_Hearing.pdf From_SEBI_Written Submiissions - Murugappa Krishnan 139953.pdf thanking_CIC_post_decision_Redacted.pdf
  5. 3 points
    Just be polite and formal like a professional. Download the blog on inspection by JP Shah and carry it in the form of hard copy and take usual precautions . Search in website for Hon'ble Sailesh decision in our forum, wherein in CIC decision he ruled that PIO has to provide the information as on record, irrespective of the type of query. Write a thanks letter, seek for specific appointment date, timings, officers to be contacted and provide him the list of files you wish to inspect. Wait for their call and attend inspection atleast before 15 minutes to the given time. Never argue, do not show ego or knowledge, just focus on information required by you.
  6. 3 points
    Focus on what an appellant can do and forget these routine highhandedness of ICs. Because it is the first time, you might have felt bad, and this is usual and most of the ICs are biased. If you wanted real remedy, take the lead and file writ after receiving decision. Sitting or standing is not important, even some persons were are imprisoned on false charges for seeking information under RTI as public authorities are having such power. Getting information is the only priority, focus on that, ignore others as some persons are having attitude, power, arrogance issues and just pity them for lack of minimum decency towards a citizen that has taken up larger public interest sacrificing his time and money.
  7. 3 points
    Hearing in First Appeal is not mandatory. In Case No. CIC/AD/A/2013/000875-SA, orderes delivered on 14.6.2014 it is observed that there is not a whisper about hearing by FAA in RTI Act, 2005. There is also no provision under the Act to prescribe procedures with regard to the manner in which FAA has to conduct & decide the First Appeal. It is also mentioned in that Order that it is duty of the FAA to consider written appeal of the Appellant even if he is not present on the date of hearing and decide on the basis of the material available. Even appearance before the Second Appellate Authority i.e. SIC is not mandatory, as per State Information Commissioner(Appeal Rules), 2005 (Section 7 of the R.T.I. Rules) (Central Act 22 of 2005) ..
  8. 3 points
    Sir, Am sharing some relevant files with you as requested. All of them can be quoted. Also sharing with you the draft of the RTI- you can refer to the life and liberty clause as stated below. This is for ready use. Best Regards, Andy Public Information Officers, Please note: If you wish to deny any of the above items or part thereof, please give reasons for such rejection citing the proper subsections of Section 8, 9 or 11. This is required as per Section 7 (8) of RTI Act. Your Kind attention is invited to the following: - 1) Clause 7(1) of the RTI Act wherein it has been clarified that the information concerning life and liberty is to be provided within 48 Hours. 2) Recent decisions of the Central Information Commissioner in following cases wherein the CIC has decided that information on Pension Matters is to be treated as concerning Life & Liberty: a. CIC/BS/A/2016/001238, in case titled Amrika Bai v/o PIO, EPFO, Raipur decided on 30.03.2017 wherein it has been held as under: - Para 9- The moment RTI Application on Pension Issue is received, there should be a mechanism at the entry stage to discover and identify it reflects a pension related grievance/issue and then should act immediately. Para 10 – Not only the CPIO, even the other authorities under RTI Act like the first appeal /second appellate authorities also should dispose such appeals involving pension issues within 48 Hours. Para 16 – The commission also requires as per section 19(8)(a) (I, III, IV) of RTI Act, the public authority to consider pension related information as life and liberty concerned information b. CIC/BS/A/2016/000307, in case titled V. Balaraman v/s PIO, EPFO, Thiruvananthapuram decided on 4.07.2017, wherein the above orders of CIC as at 2 (a) above have been reiterated that the information related to the pension matters must be provided within 48 hours as the same is concerning life and liberty. c. CIC/BS/C/2015/000157, in case titled V. Vaidyanathan v/s PIO, EPFO, Mumbai decided on 17.07.2017, wherein the above orders of CIC as at 2(a) above have again been reiterated that the information relating to Pension matters must be provided within 48 hours as the same is concerning life and liberty. You are therefore, requested to provide duly attested /certified photocopies (see Chapter 1, clause (2) (j) (ii) of the RTI act 2005) of the aforesaid documents on A-4 paper sheets under RTI Act 2005 within 48 Hours as decided by the CIC (see Sr. no. 2 above). 48 Hours Clause can be invoked.pdf 2017-06-28-193000321_Vaidyanathan_V.pdf news letter 4 UPDATED AS ON 3 JULY 2017 BY SECRETARY.pdf Pension_RTI_GBT_3634.pdf Pension_RTI_PK_2962.pdf Show_Cause-307_Balaraman_V.pdf
  9. 3 points
    Please find attached herewith the CIC decision wherein it had ruled as follows: prefixing of why & what doesnt debar applicant from receiving info..pdf
  10. 3 points
    FAA's obligation is to direct his subordinate Public Information Officer suitably to follow such stipulations in RTI Act, if he finds from first appellant has stated any grounds of violation. Information should always be from Public Information officer. You can ask a friend or relative from different station to file RTI Application seeking information as follows: Information solicited: 1.Please provide the copy of office notes/directions that state the reasons for putting on hold the recruitment of Deputy Managers, Assistant Managers (desk top). 2.Please inform whether there is an obligation on public authority to inform developments to the aspiring candidates, without giving scope for each candidate filing individual RTI Applications. 3.Please provide the link if the matter is put on website about suspending such recruitment. 4.Inform further plan of action for recruitment in future if available on record if any.
  11. 3 points
    If a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, then payment has to be sought under the RTI Rules. The question before the Supreme Court was which Guidelines/Rules will govern the prescription of fee for copies of answer sheets and their inspection. The Court held that while the ICSI is governed by the Companies Secretaries Act, 1980 and the Examination Committee formed under the statute prescribes a certain fee, the RTI Rules also lay down a fee structure for procurement of answer sheets. The Court held, “In our opinion, the existence of these two avenues is not mutually exclusive and it is up to the candidate to choose either of the routes. Thus, if a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, then payment has to be sought under the Rules therein, however, if the information is sought under the Guidelines of the appellant, then the appellant is at liberty to charge the candidates as per its guidelines.” The decision was rendered by a Bench of Justices NV Ramana and S Abdul Nazeer, which made it clear that if there are other avenues to procure answer sheets, the applicant can choose which one to route her request through. The RTI Rules entitle a student to seek inspection and certified copies of their answer scripts. When this right is exercised, Rule 4 will govern the levy of the required charges. This Rule stipulates a fee of Rs. 2 for each page of the answer script. For inspection, no fee is prescribed for the first hour. For every subsequent hour of inspection, the fee is Rs. 5 per hour. The order came in an appeal filed by the Institute of Companies Secretaries of India (ICSI) against a decision of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The respondent, Advocate Paras Jain, had sought from ICSI certified copies of answer sheets and their inspection under RTI. He was charged a fee for the same as per Guideline No. 3 notified by the Statutory Council of the ICSI. As per the ICSI Guidelines, the fee for the supply of certified copies was Rs. 500 per answer sheet, and the charge for inspection was Rs. 450 per answer book. Download the decision here.15222_2014_Order_11-Apr-2019.pdf
  12. 3 points
    Unfortunately every citizen is having his own personal matters to be taken care of and hardly have personal time to spend with families at a place like Mumbai. In addition this goondaism and group fights , extortions and threatening are usual. BMC corporators are more powerful than MLAs of other districts. If any citizen is having such time, he should file RTI Application and seek information on full details of unauthorised construction, locational address, present status, action taken, pending in Court and the officials responsible for such negligence in duties. In this forum, I have seen such extra ordinary follow up through RTI and then bringing into logical conclusion through PIL by our esteemed member Mr.Bali and he has contributed more insights into tackling this problem. Because of his vast knowledge, perseverance, he could do that at his personal expenses in Punjab state, but in Mumbai we can never dream of that. Why only Mumbai, it is there in Thane, Kalyan and even in Dombvilli also.
  13. 3 points
    In younger age, everything appears beautiful either a child or new articles. In 2017, none of the members remembered the forum and the Anniversary passed silently without any wishes or celebrations. It is only time that erases the memory. But in short span, most of the experts stored huge information that will be useful for another decade. Though they do not visit regularly, their past contribution still helps every member. The success and rejoice of the forum is not confined to a single day, and every day someone should be benefitted by the forum. Every day is for celebration if members succeed through their learning and guidance..
  14. 2 points
    Under RTI Act the only right a citizen is having is for information that is not exempted alone and for further appeals under RTI. Imposing penalty against CPIO is absolute discretion of the Information Commissioner, a citizen has no right to demand for such penalty. If the problem is with information writ is the final remedy against IC decision. If for imposing penalty, HC may consider it but HC can not take any action against IC. Waiting since 14 years for correct interpretation of the penalty clause and if some one gets that imposing penalty for violation is mandatory to impose penalty, the enactment of RTI is most successful. No court accepts suits on decisions/orders under RTI and all officials are immune under RTI for their legitimate actions taken in good faith.
  15. 2 points
    As repeatedly stated by experts/moderators in this forum, RTI is not a problem solving, or redressal of grievances process. One can get only information and it all depends on the applicant as to how he uses such information to get a logical end for the actual problem. These issues have to be resolved collectively by active group of persons by submitting petitions to elected representatives like councellors, MLA, MPs etc and then following up through media coverage . RTI should also be made to Government Hospitals for collecting data on mosquito bites, outpatients treated for malaria, epidemics spread if any during last one year,. The opinions of residents on such maintenance by authorities must be recorded. There should be a morcha to the officials and it should get adequate publicity. After creating a record of all these efforts finally filing PIL before HC is the certain remedy. Under RTI you can seek information on Budget for drainage, reasons for poor maintenance of such systems, Inspection and monitoring by authorities periodicity and controlling measures, officials involved in such maintenance, proposed plan of action to cover open drains. The purpose of making this post is not to discourage, but only to remind the poor financial budgets of local authority, and difficulty in handling such a large issue by one or two individual under RTI.
  16. 2 points
    As a citizen you are entitled to seek any information you require from Public authorities. Please go through Shri JP Shah blogs and find the sample format of RTI Application to know status of complaint and make suitable alterations and file such application as per rules and regulations of RTI Applicable to that authority. Remember RTI is just a Road and not destination. A citizen can seek and get information which is available with public authority in the form of material record. There is no scope for questioning the quality of their action or reasons for inaction unless those are reduced as record in writing.
  17. 2 points
    @ Shri Sunil Ahya : "3. You can file a RTI application directly addressed to their PIO, without waiting for the results of step 1 and 2 above, as follows (please note that for filing a RTI, name of a person is not required but only designation PIO is required):" Always write on the envelope only the HO name and do not write To, The Public Information Officer, If you write a public information officer, as there is no such designated officer, they may refuse to accept such application, which again should be sorted out through complaint to Telangana IC. Instead write only the name of dept., Director of Handlooms and Textiles and Apparel Export parks, 3rd Floor, Chenetha Bhavan, Telangana State, Hyderabad 500001 and in that envelope your RTI Application can be addressed to Public Information Officer.
  18. 2 points
    Though it is not necessary to state the objective of seeking information, for that specific information that was qualified as in larger public interest, that larger public interest must be stated with more clarity. Seeking total minutes for two years (specific dates not mentioned in application) may not appear as justified. Grounds for Appeal: SPIO has not provided exact such sub section in Sec. 8 (1) and provided justification for applying that exemption, and quoted CIC decision without application of mind to deny information. SPIO is expected to quote section, sub section and justification for denial of such information . Appellant submits that each and Minutes of Board are not confidential and only some relating to strategy and critical information may qualify for exemption, and even in the case as TASMAC is a Public Sector Board having monopoly, there is no competition for their business in TN State. Information of those minutes that are critical and confidential may be severed and copies recorded as minutes may be provided, as meetings are not regular and may take place at quarterly intervals. PRAYER: Appellant prays for directions to SPIO for providing the information as expeditiously as possible for two separate financial years. 1-4-2017 to 31-12-2019
  19. 2 points
    We need all the detail to guide you to submit a letter to CPIO as guided by Mr. GLN Prasad. In addition pleases be guided by the post of Mr. Prasad dated 22 March 2017. Please do not open new thread on this Forum.
  20. 2 points
    Those reports unless they are placed before the Assembly can not be disclosed to public. If you are not satisfied continue the cycle and go for first and second appeals stating larger public interest.
  21. 2 points
    Public information officer has to either provide the information or deny information stating such clause under Sec. 8 sub section 1 as exemption with such justification. Please go through Sec.8 (1) and the denial stating " disproportionately diversion of the resource of public authority" was no where stated in such sub section as exempted information. There were many CIC decisions that stated that this stipulation is not an exemption under RTI. Unless member posts the exact query, precise answer as to whether it covers under Sec.2 (f) can not be given. In General a PIO must provide that information which is available in material form in his custody if it is not exempted specifically under Sec. 8 (1) Go for First appeal to FAA Grounds for first Appeal: a) As per Sec.7 (1) PIO can only "reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sec.8 & Sec. 9" b)2.There is no such exemption in Sec.8 (1) that states that PIO can reject the request on the ground that providing of information disproportionately diversion of the resource of public authority" c)It was upheld in umpteen second appeals by CIC that information can not be rejected with the reason "disproportionately diversion of the resource of public authority c)PIO has also not provided for any justification for applying such assumed reason for exempting information and quoting some reason in way relevant to deny information legally and not offering any justification for such denial was treated as "deliberate and malafide denial" Hence this first appeal.
  22. 2 points
    If the information is urgent and important immediately pay the fees under protest. Address a simple letter to SPIO, making a copy to FAA. and SIC. To ............................ .......................... Dear Sir, Reg: SIC Decision No...............................dt............................ Appellant:...................................... Ref: Demand for copying fees letter No.....................dt.................................. 1.I invite your attention to Sec. 7 (6) that states as follows: (6)Not withstanding anything contained in sub-section (5) the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limit specified in sub-section (1) Sub section (1) prescribed time limit of 30 days. RTI application was filed on.................... SIC decision was on.................... Demand from SPIO was on. 2.SPIO demanding such fees is in violation of the Sec. 7 (6) is not legally proper. However the postal order for Rs.72/- is enclosed under protest keeping in mind the importance and urgency of information. Yours faithfully, ........................ Encl: PO No:..............for Rs.72 drawn as per SPIO directions. Copy to FAA and SIC: With a request to direct SPIO for providing of information free of cost as per Sec. 7 (6) and for returning of the postal order for Rs72/ submitted by applicant under protest. This is all formal and generally appellants do not prolong and irritate authorities by educating them about RTI Act as information is always the priority, and citizens are paying to their own Government, the actual copying expenses of nominal amount.
  23. 2 points
    You can file a complaint with the Information Commission u/s. 18 of the RTI Act. Kindly refer to the blog on the following link: http://jps50.blogspot.com/2009/03/non-compliance-of-orders-of-information.html
  24. 2 points
    1.RTI Act has not stipulated any time limit for filing complaints and the rules state "Complaint should be filed within reasonable period", what is reasonable has to be decided by IC. and in the forum, so far no one has complained about rejection of complaints by IC. 2.Please go through Sec.18, First appeal is not required for making complaint. (Remember that a complainant is not entitled for information from PIO, he can only pray for penalty against PIO and which is once again the discretion of IC, and in less than .5% of complaints, IC has decided to levy the penalty.
  25. 2 points
    AS per Govt practice of rules if REPLY is not forth coming from any office a COMPLAINT TO NEXT HIGHER officer is only the method.Alternatively you can file RTI seeing as to to ACTION TAKEN AS SUGGESTED BY APPATASKAR as suggested above in the normal way
  26. 2 points
    Focus only on information. If you feel that information is urgent and important, do avail every opportunity thrown to you without further arguments. If you wanted to go for appeal go for first appeal stating the following grounds. First Appeal dt........................under RTI Act Before: Against: Brief facts: Appellant solicited information in the form of a letter for queries No.............and PIO instead of providing information vide his letter dt.............directed appellant for inspection. Grounds for Appeal: As per Sec. 7 (9) "information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately. divert the resources of public authority or would be detrimental to the safety of preservation of the record.". The same was reiterated in several CIC decisions.. As the information was not provided in the form it is requested, and PIO has chosen his own form and directed appellant to come for inspection, without caring for the convenience of appellant, the response of PIO is not proper and not satisfactory. PRAYER: Appellant prays for directions to PIO to provide that information as solicited in application. Appellant
  27. 2 points
    Then Grounds for appeal should be for providing information that is incorrect and misleading and information not providing in the form it was requested.
  28. 2 points
    The only remedy is making a written complaint to BMC with such photographs and original sanctioned plans and specifically pointing out deviations, use of property for commercial purpose etc. Then for waiting for two months and filing writ mandamus before HC.
  29. 2 points
    Sir, Apologies for not providing details RTI Appplication Information Solicited: [1] Please provide me the CCTV entire available data footage data between 10 a.m to 11.a.m as on June 03, 2019 for all the installations at B4 Police Station, Town South, Town East ,AWPS and Town West Police Station,Nagapattinam.Please provide entire data in electronic form. Quoted the excerpts form TNSIC Decision " if you PIO denies CCTV footage, CCTV footage has to preserved till the end of SA hearing" TNSIC SA 637/A/2018 & TNSIC and SA 8543/A/2017 TNSIC in a different case requesting CCTV footage at police stations,earlier ordered that if the Appellant (myself) requested for CCTV data, it should be provided SA 8543/A/2017 Note: 1.If you deny the CCTV footage data for this application, please do not delete the CCTV footage data until the decision of State Information Commission /High Court Decision
  30. 2 points
    An applicant is having right to information alone, and the penalty is in between the PIO and IC and appellant has no role to play. That penalty can never come to appellant as wrongly perceived. Insisting for imposition of penalty may spoil the relations, when one expects smooth relations without hurting. It is very difficult to establish deliberate denial with fraudulent motives by PIO.
  31. 2 points
    As to how many Deputy Chief Ministers should be appointed, it is the prerogative of the C.M.. In Andhra Pradesh, the C.M. has appointed 5 Deputy Chief Ministers & in Telangana 2 Dy. C.Ms. When State was integrated, there was no Dy. C.M. for most of the period... Court has fixed the limits for Ministers in the Cabinet i.e. 10% of the Legislatures including C.M., but there is no restriction of Dy. C.M.. There is no change of salary and perks of Ministers and Deputy Chief Ministers. Hence the question of waste of public exchequer also may not arise..This is nothing but an attempt to please the disgruntle MLAs to keep the folk together. Politicians in power should have the sense of economics of the State so that public taxes may not be wasted. Hope good sense will prevail upon them one day or the other.
  32. 2 points
    An information pertaining to co-operative societies can be broadly classified into two categories: (1) Information which a co-operative society is supposed to mandatorily and periodically file with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies e.g. annual returns etc. (2) Information which a co-operative society is not supposed to file with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and is available only at the Society's Office e.g. Minutes of Managing Committee meetings etc. Presently the status is that: The information which falls under category (1) above can be accessed under the provisions of RTI Act by filing a RTI application with the PIO of the concerned ward of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Whereas, the information which falls under category (2) above is being wrongfully denied by the PIO of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. A writ petition on the above subject is pending before the Bombay High Court.
  33. 2 points
    IC is not supposed to revise/modify/aleter or re look into delivered decision. The action is not proper. File RTI Application and seek information from SC as follows: 10Please provide Certified copy sthat states the powers of IC in changing a decision delivered, without once again hearing appellant.
  34. 2 points
    Kindly go through RERA act by downloading the Act from google, and you can find from stipulations as to whether your query is proper or not.
  35. 2 points
    You have been recognised as regular member with more than 156 posts, and filing applications with more than 10 different authorities, and by this time you have acquired more than an average RTI applicant and well versed with the facts. Reduce number of queries and seek guidance only in case of douts and no need to report developments on day to day basis. Only in case of genuine doubts and want sincere guidance, please use the forum for such posts.
  36. 2 points
    Namaskaram Prasad Ji. Thank you for answering the original question pertaining to RTI. Also thank you for your valuable inputs. What you say makes complete sense and it esp. when you say that “After all the errant officials are your own colleagues and might committed mistake without expecting any unlawful gain. Live and let live and focus on your issue”. The first step when a mistake is committed is to own it up. “To maintain a fault known is a double fault.” A genuine and inadvertent error can be condoned on compassionate grounds provided when such an error is brought to light, genuine intent is displayed to rectify the issue and contain the damage. Not otherwise. The perspective that you have given is a valid one and finds resonance within me. It also gives me strength to file a detailed response so that the details of the case are known esp. to those who are in a similar situation. Please allow such a response. This is a Pension Recovery Case, the rules governing the Pension Disbursal and Recovery are very well codified. “If a payment is made over and above eligibility, any one is having such rights to recover the amount paid by mistake”. It is not illegal. My comment: Pension cannot be equated as Payment. Earlier the right to Pension was a fundamental right and also a property right. When property right was repealed as a fundamental right by the 44th Amendment, It became a Constitutional Right protected under Article 300 A enforceable by law. “Recovering the amount paid by mistake is not illegal”- true; However, Recovering Pension Overpayment amount after continually making overpayment beyond 5 years is in direct contravention to several supreme court judgements and is not legally tenable. More so, in every case, due process of law must be followed. Recovery cannot be made arbitrarily. Pension overpayment and an overpayment by cashier may appear similar in terms of human behaviour- but it isn’t. These two scenarios are completely different. Cash overpayment on counter can purely be an inadvertent human error – but pension disbursal is a highly controlled well-defined process with multiple checks and balances. The probability of making such overpayment is highly minimized if correct inputs (such as: Date of retirement, Date of birth, PPO Number, DA, years of service, commuted amount etc) are fed in the process; Bank has every right to induce pressure in case of un-intended benefits accrued by such a mistake to any beneficiary. However, if you find a Pension overpayment that has happened for over 5 years, you will almost always find that either the Bank or the Pension Sanctioning Authority has overlooked and has been non-compliant to the well-defined sacrosanct procedures that are mandatorily to be followed. In such cases, it is no longer a case of innocuous human error but of wilful negligence. In our case the bank has completely overlooked the procedures mentioned as per Circular No. 57, Dt. 17, September, 2008, issued by PCDA (P); Specifically, Para 10 of the Circular directs the bank to share every case of pension consolidation done by the bank to the PCDA (P). This was never done. This observation comes from the stakeholders themselves: the CAG & PCDA (P). I have gone through the case reference mentioned: Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd vs Attar-Ul-Nissa & Others on 7 October, 1966; this is not applicable in our case. I hope this is the one that you were referring to. Without going into too much technical details here the overall process is: The Banks consolidate the Pension as per circulars issued by PCDA (P) and disburse the amount to the Pensioner. Later the Bank sends the advice of the payment made to the RBI and receives the reimbursement made only by the Central Accounts Section (CAS) of the RBI located at Nagpur. So, let’s say the pension consolidation done by the bank indicates that the pensioner should receive 60,000 as pension amount. If there is a Pension Recovery happening- the bank would deduct 20,000 and disburse 40,000 to the Pensioner. This recovery is as per the RBI authorization. (Refer to the RBI Circular: RBI/2017-18/1 DGBA.GBD.No.-1/31.05.001/2017-18). So, the bank is not recovering from my account once the credit is available. They are deducting the recovery amount at source- pretty much the way the TDS (Tax deduction at source) works. “No one can benefit on mistakes and use it for unlawful gains”- Again in complete agreement with this. What you say is correct. This is the exact question and perspective that has been looked into through several SC Judgements. The Rafiq Masih’s Case words this more cogently: Quote “ Merely on account of the fact, that the release of these monetary benefits was based on a mistaken belief at the hands of the employer, and further, because the employees had no role in the determination of the employer, could it be legally feasible, for the private respondents to assert, that they should be exempted from refunding the excess amount received by them”? Unquote However, as said earlier, this notion and perspective of unlawful gains has been covered many times in several SC judgements. These necessarily have to be mentioned here to dispel the highly over-simplified view of things and would need a detailed response. The SC provisions for such a recovery if it is found within the first 5 years of overpayment. Beyond that, it does not permit such recovery. The Pensioner has never been told about his correct entitlement of Pension; Neither by the PCDA (P) nor by the Bank. There is a complete blatant disregard again by the Bank in issuing of Pension Slips – please refer to RBI letter No. DGBA.GAD. No. H-10975/45.05.031/2006-07 dated January 9, 2007, in this regard. As per this the Pensioner must be issued a Pension Slip so that the Pensioner knows about his correct entitlement. The bank is in possession of these documents but the Pensioner has never been given / made known his correct entitlement. A case can be made stating that the Pensioner ought to make efforts to know the correctness of his Pension. In this case the Bank was asked for the Pension Slips- and it didn’t provide any. So- in such cases, whatever the amount accrued as Pension was taken as the correct entitlement. It can be argued whether such an excess was used for “Unlawful Gains”. However, the lapses and errors of omission and commission done by the bank cannot be ignored or condoned. However, the process of making such recovery cannot be arbitrary. Due process of law must be followed in case of any recovery. All this and more perspectives have been completely though over in several judgments of the Supreme Court in cases of Pension Recovery due to Overpayment. These are:- a) State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 – wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law where the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. The OM issued by DOPT : F.No. 1 8/03/20 1 5-Estt. (Pay-I) has been issued citing this judgement and it clearly states that no recovery from pension can be made in violation of the Judgment of Rafiq Masih b) ShyamBabu Verma Vs. Union of India reported in 1994 SC (2) 521, wherein a three Judge Bench of SC held that no steps should be taken to recover or adjust any excess amount paid to the employees due to the fault of the respondents c) Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State. Of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475, where in a three Judge Bench of the SC held that the relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. d) The DPPI -2013 Instructions (Defence Pension Payment Instructions), section 103.2 issued by PCDA (P), Allahabad clearly prohibits the banks from initiating recovery of overpayment of pensions not detected within 12 months of the date of first erroneous charge without the orders of PCDA(P). Every case of overpayment detected should be reported to the PCDA(Pensions), which in turn shall decide himself or shall obtain orders of the competent authority, Govt. of India as the case may be. It further states that to avoid hardship to the pensioner, payment for the current period, however should be continued to the pensioner at the correct rate admissible. Please note that the Pension Disbursing Bank is just an agent and is under direct instructions by the Pension Sanctioning Authority. It cannot act independently on its own. Some parts of the Rafiq Masih’s Judgement need to be Quoted to give a complete perspective: - “The Pensioner was not guilty of furnishing any incorrect information, which had led the concerned competent authority, to commit the mistake of making the higher payment to the employees. The payment of higher dues to the private respondents, in all these cases, was not on account of any misrepresentation made by them, nor was it on account of any fraud committed by them” – this is true in our case. It further states: “It will be our endeavour, to lay down the parameters of fact situations, wherein employees, who are beneficiaries of wrongful monetary gains at the hands of the employer, may not be compelled to refund the same. In our considered view, the instant benefit cannot extend to an employee merely on account of the fact, that he was not an accessory to the mistake committed by the employer; or merely because the employee did not furnish any factually incorrect information, on the basis whereof the employer committed the mistake of paying the employee more than what was rightfully due to him; or for that matter, merely because the excessive payment was made to the employee, in absence of any fraud or misrepresentation at the behest of the employee”. “ Having examined a number of judgments rendered by this Court, we are of the view, that orders passed by the employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. In other words, interference would be called for, only in such cases where, it would be iniquitous to recover the payment made. In order to ascertain the parameters of the above consideration, and the test to be applied, reference needs to be made to situations when this Court exempted employees from such recovery, even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Repeated exercise of such power, "for doing complete justice in any cause" would establish that the recovery being effected was iniquitous, and therefore, arbitrary. And accordingly, the interference at the hands of this Court.” “The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the concerned employee. If the effect of the recovery from the concerned employee would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover.” It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. That completes the reference to the Rafiq Masih’s Judgement by Apex Court. Regarding Arbitrariness, as stated earlier- 1. No show cause notice was issued to the pensioner prior to commencing the recovery 2. No order of recovery has been issued by any competent authority. In the end the long detailed response may seem disproportionate keeping in mind the brevity of inputs received from you; However, this case is not an isolated one. This is just a tip of the iceberg. If you think the above response is exaggerated, you can check the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Disbursement of Defence Pension for the year ended March 2016 (Performance Audit No. 26 of 2017). This Audit Report is submitted to the Presidents Office. It states “Deficiencies in the pension disbursement system: We observed that the transmission errors as well as other mistakes in the banks, which account for nearly 75 per cent of the pension disbursements, had resulted in numerous cases of underpayments and overpayments”. “As per records of the PCDA (P) Allahabad, there were 24, 61,651 defence pensioners as on 01/04/2015, which increased to 25,00,631 on 01/04/2016”. The mathematics can be done! All the documents and references cited above are available in public domain. Apologies, shall restrict further posts on matter pertaining to RTI only. Lest any specific questions are asked pertaining to the background of the case while filing the RTI. Regards, Andy
  37. 2 points
    Wait for say approximately 35 days from the date of filing of the RTI application and if you do not receive any response from the PIO, then file a first appeal with the concerned First Appellate Authority under section 19(1) of the RTI Act.
  38. 2 points
    State Public Information Officer, Sub Registrar (Society Registration) Information solicited: 1.Please provide the copy of registration certificate for Locality Resident Association of.......................at...............................with Shri..........................as President and as.................................Secretary. (As a member you have the right to seek same information from your society without spending single paisa)
  39. 2 points
    We expect that positive success stories from our members and we take pride in those members achievements. CONGRATULATIONS.
  40. 2 points
    What can you do by knowing that information? Such displaced families are more, the affected people are many, there was no problem as everyone was accommodated. They have a powerful union/association and they have links to know status and developments themselves as they are concerned. Jump into the fray, only when you can bring a change through logical conclusion and do not expose yourself on petty things that cannot make any difference. Do not think that your repeated representations are of no use, get them solved through the interference of welfare association and meeting concerned officials in a group. In police, discipline is the priority, and I have not come across any broad-minded superior who considers their subordinates are also citizens. Our actions should bring results and should not drag us to further problems. Still, if you wanted to go on hunting for the information, seek such information as follows: Information solicited: 1. Please provide the reasons on the record for the abnormal delay in commencing housing project for police quarters at................................................ 2.The present status and plan of action to complete the quarters within a time frame.
  41. 2 points
    Let the answer come from KIC. Apply for such information in prescribed format with such adhesive court fee stamp of Rs.10/- Brief facts. The website of Karnataka Information Commission for proactive disclosure under section 4(1)(b)(x) the site showed the message"The origin server did not find a current representation for the target resource or is not willing to disclose that one exists." Information solicited.1. Is it not mandatory to disclose monthly remuneration of officer/employees of the Commission under RTI as per 4(1)(b)(x). (Voluntary disclosure) 2. Please provide specific exemptions if any to KSIC alone.
  42. 2 points
    No uniform format has been prescribed. Her attendance is also not needed. That is just a formality. Please mail a copy in advance and retain one copy with you for showing it to Commission.. Before .................Information commission,..................... File No: Against: SPIO,........................ Appellant:..................................... Authorisation letter for representing the appellant for hearing on..................... Appellant humbly submits that she could not attend hearing on.........................and hereby authorizes her husband Sri................................for representing her and submitting the grounds of appeal and praying for such remedies under RTI Act. He may be permitted to attend the hearing on the basis of this authorization letter Shri ............................Signs as.................................................................... Appellant
  43. 2 points
    Certainly, you have done a crime. But your motive is not for any unlawful gain to you or unlawful loss to anyone. Though your friend's letter can not erase/wipe your crime, he is the affected person, and if he has no objection, nothing can happen to you. Do not fear and always use your own name. If you are worried about your safety, request your friend to sign his name as an applicant. Keep silent and nothing can happen. Never do that again.
  44. 2 points
    Make all attempts, do not assume things, let them state their objections if any. Continue your efforts and do not get doubts as you are not investing any huge amounts. It costs only Rs.22/- for a Registered post.
  45. 2 points
    The citizen has the right to seek information only, and the rest is left between PIO and SIC. The duty of a citizen is using first appeal and second appeal only and making representation to CIC. Represent material facts to IC and seek information. These are not loopholes and in fact, no PIO is caring for RTI sincere implementation. The penalty is left to the discretion of IC killing the spirit of RTI Act and the act is just a paper tiger. which PIO can just blow with his breadth.
  46. 2 points
    Just go ahead and file the first appeal on the following grounds (keep it short and simple): Grounds of the First Appeal: 1. That, the information sought against each of the points of request for information is unique and not a repetition. 2. That, the information sought against each of the points of request for information are all public documents and hence the exemption of section 8(1)(d) (commercial confidence) does not apply. Prayers: 1. Kindly direct the PIO to provide the requested information forthwith. 2. Kindly direct the PIO to provide the requested information free of cost in accordance with the letter and spirit of section 7(6) of the RTI Act.
  47. 2 points
    You can file RTI Application to State public Information officer TSCB and can solicit the information as follows: Information solicited: 1. Please provide the status of various projects undertaken by the board for construction of houses in the .......District. 2. Please provide the Brochure/Booklet/Circular that states the norms for allocating such houses. 3. Please provide No of applications received, accepted, rejected and finally selected, a vacant position as on 31-3-2019. 4. Please provide a copy of the beneficiaries list. NB: Please provide that information available in electronic data through CD and if the information is in hard copies provide that hard copy. Note to search website of TNSCB for format of RTI Application, CPIO particulars and RTI Fee mode of remittance.
  48. 2 points
    Sorry the file is not available for opening in my system.
  49. 2 points
    There is a mistake on your part. Time and again, experts advised to record the entire proceedings as Minutes and give it to FAA and PIO duly signed. If PIO has really provided that letter, he might have marked and written to FAA immediately after receiving the first appeal. He should have at least communicated to the appellant. There are flaws in every step. The designation of PIO is different and FAA must be superior in authority over PIO and designated as such. There was never a practice of signature of PIO for FAA. Again FAA can only deliver his orders and can not force any appellant to sign any document when the appellant reported non-receipt. At least the copy was not given. Coming to FAA orders, the orders are defective. Information can be denied only on stating such exemption in RTI Act Sec.8 and subsection and with proper justification for applying that section. The reason for rejection is stated as follows: "That daily status and action taken of an application cannot be supplied through RTI . " There was never any such exemption in RTI Act as stated by PIO and FAA. Ask through separate RTI application to SPIO and seek information as follows: 1. Please provide me a copy of the letter that stated that information was denied tat daily status and action taken of an application cannot be supplied through RTI . " with a copy of such entry in outward despatch letter that mentions details. As the SPIO response is essential for submitting the second appeal and such letter was never received by the Appellant. 2. Please provide me the copy of that section or subsection in RTI Act that exempts and states that "That daily status and action taken of an application cannot be supplied through RTI . " The second Appeal can be filed within 90 days from receipt of FAA. To prepare grounds for the second appeal, get this information also so that you can simply state only simple ground for the second appeal to SIC as follows: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Grounds for Appeal: SPIO has said to have rejected to provide information stating as follows: 'That daily status and action taken of an application cannot be supplied through RTI ." FAA has agreed with PIO. Appellant has neither received such letter nor there is no such stipulation exempting such information under RTI in Sec.8 or Sec.9 of RTI Act. SPIO can only deny information stating such Section and subsection with proper justification. In this case, PIO has neither quoted such exemption section/subsection nor offered any justification. Hence the information denial is treated as deliberate and malafide. PIO was asked to provide such Section and subsection in which there is such exemption and PIO has responded as follows ( or Not responded) PRAYER: Appellant prays for directions to SPIO and to FAA also (as SPIO has signed for FAA) to provide the information as expeditiously as possible free of cost as denial is deliberate and malafide.
  50. 2 points
    Is the document made available by the central/state public information officer is admissible as evidence in a court of law? It is very pertinent question. This question is sure to arise when the receipient of the document attempts to put in as evidence in a case pending in the civil or criminal court. The document made available by the Public Information Officer is the one which is already recorded in the official records and published or it may be one which is not recorded and published or the one which is yet to be recorded and published. What the public information officer does is, he just furnishes a copy of the record. Such record may be a true copy but it is not either authenticated or can be vouchsafed as true. The information available will be is something like news. The public information Officer is not a party to such information. He is not capable of speaking anything about the content of the document or about its veracity. The document furnished by the public Information Officer is no doubt a document issued from the proper custody and by the authority which by law is found to keep the inofrmation and disseminate it. That by itself doesnot make the document either authentic or its contents true. Moreover, the document issued has no purpose other than allowing the recipient to know of this content and nothing more. It is not the intention or the purpose of Public Information Officer to support the recipent when he uses it for any purpose either to prove or disprove any fact in which the recipient of the document is only concerned. The document and the information contained therein is neutral as if it is just a news. The public Information Officer is completely ignorant of the purpose for which the applicant has made his request for information nor the Public Information Officer is in any manner concerned with it. In the application for information the applicant is not required to state any reasons why he requires information. Therefore, it is not an application for a certified copy of any information recorded by any adjudicating authority in a dispute. As per the practices of the courts and tribunals the party applying for a certified copy should state weather it is required for purpose of appeal or for reference. No such condition is prescribed for the applicant for information to state the reason why he requires information. The copy furnished by the court can be used only for the purpose for which the copy of appplication is made. As per the practices prevalent with the Government when an application for certified copy is made, the authority or the officer recieving the application will specifically endorse on the copy he grants, that it shall not be used in court as evidence eventhough the information contained theirein is not only true and is also authentic. In such cases, the court recieving the certified copy, before admitting the document requires that the document should be proved to be of the original. It is particularly true so in the case of survey maps, where the court normally as a practice appoints the official surveyour as a court Commissioner and obtain the true sketch. Here, in the case of Public Information Officer wheather he makes an endorsement as is referred to above to the said effect that the documents supplied by him shall not be used in court, it is implied in the circumstances of this Act that the document made available to the applicant shall not be used as a proof in court proceedings. Further, the principal purpose of the Act itself is to make available to the citizens all infomration the Government is possessed off for his self-illumination to function as an enlightned and well informaed citizen and not to help him to score any point with his opponent in any dispute. Thus, when the citizen wants to use the document obtained by him from the Public Information Officer as a document in any civil or criminal proceedings, he should adopt the procedure prescribed for purpose of obtaining certified copies through court process and not by making an application for information under this Act. However this interpretation is yet to be formalized by way of decisions that may occur in future.
This leaderboard is set to Kolkata/GMT+05:30

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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