- NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
- shows RTI
- RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
- 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
- The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
- Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
- Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'interest'.
Found 9 results
A convict or a person in remand cannot have right to privacy in medical matters furnished to seek admission in a hospital if adequate public interest is involved in the case. The public can seek to know under the RTI Act if the person was genuinely admitted on medical grounds or if he faked ill-health so as to avoid staying in jail. The Bombay High Court rightly ruled so, while dealing with the issue whether a person convicted for contempt of court or during the period of incarceration, can claim privilege or confidentially in respect of the medical records maintained by a public authority Read at: Public Interest Vs Confidentiality - The Hans India
arunpatanjal posted a question in Ask for Non RTI SupportDear Sir, I would like to know How can i help poor man ,who had loan from rich man at 5-10% monthly interest with out paying any tex, please guide me.
rtiindia posted a topic in RTI Appeals decisionsThis article has been posted at our #LawSegment . To read the full article follow this link: Activities of Anti-Corruption NGO are for Public Interest and to subscribe to our daily mailer follow this link Join our free Right to Information Newsletter. While obtaining information regarding details of selected candidates of economically weaker sections (EWS) from Doon Public School the PIO alleged that RTI Applicant has threatened her saying that “My dekhunga, my kuch karunga” and that applicant is not having any public interest behind his RTI applications. The RTI applicant denied all the allegations made by the officer and further stated that he is heading an NGO and all his activities are for public interest. The Commission having heard the submissions and perused the record directed the PIO/Education, West B District to provide point wise revised information to the appellant. The EWS Form is for application…Read more › The law segment is available here RTI INDIA - Invoking Your Rights Read the complete article here...
koteswararaonerella posted a topic in Discussions on RTIOne of my junior officer of BSNL retired from service on 30th june,2011 with a disciplinary case pending decision on that date and hence his pensionary benifits to the tune of 18 lakhs were WITHHELD and finally his case was FINALISED in Decmber,2012 and immediately thereafter he submitted REPRESENTATION TO RELEASE THE AMOUNT waited fr 20 days and gave a reminder and waited for 15 days and FILED RTI application seeking STATUS REPORT on the representations.No reply from CPIO for 40 days ,thenFirst Appeal was filed with FAA who is also there in the same building,again NO REPLY or 40 day. At this stage NSTEAD OF GOING TO CIC we filed a petiton highlighting RTI APPLICATION and representation submitted earlier to that and requested to order the competent authority O PAY BANK INTEREST for the with held amount from the date order(Dec,2012) and CAT gave a favourable ORDER and yesterdy he received INTEREST OF Rs.67,430/. thus finally JUSTICE WAS MADE TO HIM.
Please see attachment. From Feb 2004 to July 2006, I was working in Sanmina-SCI Pvt Ltd, Chennai and from July 2006 to May 2007, I was working with S2 Infotech Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai. In Aug 2006, I gave Form 13 to S2 Infotech HR Team to transfer my EPF and EPS from Sanmina account in EPF, Chennai to S2 Infotech account in EPF, Mumbai. I went to Chennai Ambattur EPF office about 6 months back and they told me that my EPF and EPS accts are closed. I gave my Form 10C and Form 19 in Nov 2010 to S2 Infotech, Mumbai. Yesterday, I received 2 amounts in my bank = Rs. 90090.00 and Rs. 5931 from Provident Fund Office, Mumbai. After I received the money, I called the Provident Fund Consultant for S2 Infotech and he told me that when a transfer takes place, both EPF and EPS from the old EPF office gets credited to the new EPF account and no transfer takes place to the new EPS account. The new EPS account will receive only from the new employer. Is this information correct? In the attachment is the Provident Fund deductions from my salary and company contribution and I would to know based on the amounts mentioned, if the money I have received is correct: 1) How frequently is interested credited to Provident Fund Account and what is the rate of interest? 2) My contribution to Provident Fund account stopped after May 2007. So after May 2007, there was no interest credited to my EPF account? According to my calculation, total amount should be approx Rs. 1,30,000 including interest, but I got only Rs. 95,900? PF_contribution.doc
smbhappy posted a question in Ask for Non RTI SupportEntire 9.50 percent interest income on Employees Provident Fund to be tax-exempt Submitted by : admin on dated Thursday, October 7th, 2010 The finance ministry has assured the Employees Provident Fund Organisation , or EPFO, that the entire 9.5% interest on the accumulated corpus of account holders for the current fiscal will not be taxed, ending speculation that the government would start taxing an income that had so far been exempt. “The finance ministry has told us that it would issue a notification as soon as the EPFO notifies the higher interest rate for the year clarifying that the entire interest on PF (provident fund) for the fiscal would be tax exempt ,” an EPFO official said. Labour minister Mallikarjun Kharge will go through the minutes of the meeting of the central board of trustees, or CBT, of the EPFO, which decided on the higher interest rate, after which the new interest rate for the year would be notified, the official added. The finance ministry had issued a notification on August 26, days before the CBT declared a 9.5% interest rate on PF deposits for 2010-11, stating that up to 8.5% of returns would be tax free. This had led to protests from trade unions which demanded that whatever rate of return the EPFO announced had to be tax exempt. “Since the notification was put up by the finance ministry before the CBT meeting, it must have been based on the assumption that the 8.5% interest rate that had been maintained in the last five years would continue this year as well,” the official said. The EPFO declared a one percentage point higher interest for the current year after it discovered Rs 1,731 crore of surplus funds in one of its accounts.
As reported by Manoj More at indianexpress.com on Feb 23, 2010 Pune : Delayed pension : Of 9,706 applications, only 38 got the case settled in the mandatory 30-day period Of the 9,706 persons who filed applications for pension with the Pune Employees Provident Fund office between January 1, 2008, and February 3, 2009, only 38 got their claims settled in the mandatory 30-day period. An RTI application filed by B T Bhujbal, secretary of the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) and S S Paranjape, general secretary of the sangh, found that one Sheila Dixit, a resident of Kothrud, received Rs 2,586 as interest in December, 2008, a demand that has been by the same body that all 9,668 individuals who never received the pension in 30 days as stipulated under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, also be paid the pension amount with interest. Claims of other 4,355 persons were settled in a staggered manner. While 795 got it after 31 days but within three months, 1,660 got it settled after three months but within six months. Another 1,569 got their claims settled after six months but before the year was up and for the remaining 331 it took more than one year to get their claims settled. "We are going by the law. The Act says if the commissioner fails to settle the claim in 30 days, he shall be liable to pay interest on the benefit amount and same shall be deducted from the salary commissioner. In fact, they have already paid one individual the interest. Now, they should pay it to others as well," said Paranjape. The BMS plans to take out a morcha to the PF office on Tuesday. PF Commissioner M K Sapkal acknowledged that Rs 2,586 has been paid to one individual by way of interest in lieu of delayed pension but refused to say anything more. Another senior officer said the amount may have been wrongly paid and the process to recover the same would be started soon. The BMS brushes aside this argument, saying it was paid in 2008 and the PF office cannot claim it is a mistake after a year when faced with the prospect of paying interest on delayed payment of pension to so many people. S Padmanabhan, the senior PF Commissioner, who also said he was not authorised to speak to the media, attributed the delay in the payment of pension to staff shortage. As to whether 9,668 individuals will be paid interest at the rate of 12 per cent for delayed pension, Padmanabhan said it was internal matter of the PF office and it would soon be sorted out. Officials at the PF office said the amount is not deducted from the salary of the commissioner, but from the salary of employees who cannot settle the claim in 30 days. "One clerk has to clear 600 applications in a month. We have 25 lakh accounts holders and only a staff of 300. It is a race against time and against a mountain of workload," officials said. Padmanabhan said, "We are expecting at least 200 more hands in the near future. Certain skilled staff has been recruited and would soon be on the job," he said. Source: Pension with interest for 9,600 claimed
i m having one home loan fr stan chart bank . took it at a floating rate of 7.5 % , today it is 13% . they r not reducing the rate of interest despite RBI guidelines . how can i b sure that they are complying with RBI guidelines.
ganpat1956 posted a topic in RTI in Media13 September 2007 Article by Caroline Bush In Re Stephanie Peatling and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations  AATA 1011, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered whether the fees for processing a media outlet's request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) should be reduced on the grounds of public interest. The Tribunal decided that even though there were considerable public interest grounds to support a waiver of the fees, the countervailing "commercial benefit" that a media outlet would derive from the release of the documents outweighed the public interest in the release of the relevant documents. The facts Ms Peatling, in her capacity as a reporter for the Sydney Morning Herald ("SMH"), lodged an application with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations for access to documents used by the Department in formulating the Government's "Welfare-to-Work" policy. As part of her request, Ms Peatling asked that any charges be halved "for the public interest". The Department advised Ms Peatling that she was not entitled to a reduction of fees, as it concluded that there was no evidence that the documents would be made available to the public and therefore she had not shown how the provision of the documents in question would benefit the public. The Department also found that the payment of the fee would not cause financial hardship to the SMH. Following an unsuccessful internal review of the decision Ms Peatling lodged an application with the Tribunal for a review of the internal review decision. The Legislative framework The issue for the Tribunal was whether the charges should have been reduced under section 29(5) of the Act. Section 29(5) of the Act says: "(5) Without limiting the matters the agency or Minister may take into account in determining whether or not to reduce or not impose the charge, the agency or Minister must take into account: whether the payment of the charge, or part of it, would cause financial hardship to the applicant, or to a person on whose behalf the application was made; and whether the giving of access to the document in question is in the general public interest or interest of a substantial section of the public". A memorandum prepared by the Attorney General's Department, the Freedom of Information Memorandum No.29, offers guidance in relation to section 29(5) of the Act. In relation to the issue of "financial hardship", the Memorandum states that financial hardship means more than an applicant having to meet a charge from his or her own resources. On the issue of "public interest", the Memorandum sets out a two-part test. The first question is whether the benefit of the release of the information will flow to the public at large and the second question is whether making the information more widely available would benefit the public. The Memorandum also provides that "f an agency concludes that giving access would be in the public interest in a particular case, it should grant full remission of fees or not impose any charges in the absence of any other relevant countervailing factor". The Memorandum lists a number of examples of relevant countervailing considerations, including "where the applicant could reasonably be expected to obtain a commercial or other benefit from disclosure". The Tribunal's decision The Tribunal was ultimately satisfied that countervailing considerations outweighed the public interest in releasing the documents and that the decision under review should be affirmed. The Tribunal reached six key conclusions in the process of making this decision. First, the Department argued that a majority of the documents contained confidential information (many were Cabinet-in-Confidence) and would be exempt from release. The Tribunal, however, found that even if only a handful of the documents could be released, this should not disentitle an applicant to a reduction in fees on public interest grounds. Second, there was an issue as to whether documents would come to the attention of the public. However, evidence was given that any documents released would be posted online by SMH and the Tribunal was ultimately satisfied that the documents, if released, would come to the public's attention. Third, the Department argued that the release of the information was not in the public interest as the information was potentially confusing as it did not represent broader economic effects which may occur as a result of the reform. However, the Tribunal found that the fact that information was potentially misleading and confusing does not make its release contrary to the public interest. Fourth, the Department also argued that some of the documents in question had been superseded. Seeking guidance again from the decision in McKinnon, the Tribunal found that the release of superseded documents would not make a valuable contribution to the public debate and could undermine the public integrity of the government's decision making process. Fifth, the Department argued that the information in many of the documents contained highly sensitive economic data which, if released, could cause persons or organisations to distort their behaviour. The Tribunal however, determined that the Department had not made out this assertion. In particular, it had not given examples of the kinds of behavioural changes that could occur or shown why those changes would be detrimental. This left only the issue of "countervailing considerations" to be resolved. The Tribunal concluded that although the SMH would not necessarily derive a direct commercial benefit from disclosure, the FOI request was made within the ordinary course of the SMH's publishing business. The applicant was seeking the documents for the purposes of the SMH's business as a newspaper and the SMH intended to publish articles derived from the information. In this sense, the SMH would derive some benefit from the release of the information. The Tribunal considered it relevant, in this context, that there was no evidence that the SMH would not proceed with the request unless the charges were reduced. The Tribunal decided that these countervailing considerations outweighed the public interest values in section 29(5)(b) and that the decision under review should be affirmed Implications Although a media-specific case, the decision in Peatling has broader implications for Government agencies in terms of the way they consider applications for the waiver of fees and charges for FOI requests. While the question of public interest under section 29(5) of the Act requires an assessment of whether: the release will flow to the public; and the release would actually be something of benefit to the public; the assessment of these two factors requires a balancing of various considerations and ultimately, countervailing considerations, such as the commercial benefit that an applicant may derive from the release of documents, may outweigh the public interest and negate the need to waive fees. Clayton Utz - Australia - When Does The Public Interest Require FOI Fees To Be Waived? (13/09/2007 13:07:05) from Mondaq