After retirement, the appellant remarried & asked the bank to include the name of his 2nd wife for benefits of retired employees medical benefit scheme - Respondent: regulations of Retired Employees’ Medical Benefit Scheme provided - CIC: appeal dismissed
1. The appellant, Shri R. K. Verma, submitted RTI application dated 17 October 2012 before the Dy. General Manager (B&O), State Bank of India, Ludhiana; seeking information regarding inclusion of name of his second wife, Smt. Sneh Lata for benefits of retired employees medical benefit scheme etc., through a total of 5 points.
2. Vide reply dated 14 November 2012, CPIO furnished pointwise information to the appellant. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 30 November 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA), alleging that he had not been provided correct information by the CPIO concerned on point nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5. Vide order dated 27 December 2012, FAA directed the CPIO to furnish information on point nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 to the appellant within 15 days. In compliance of the above stated FAA order, vide letter dated 14 January 2013, CPIO informed the appellant that some of the required information was not available at the Circle level and the same had been requested from the Corporate Centre.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri R. K. Verma, was present at the hearing in person. The respondents, Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta, Chief Manager (HR)/CPIO participated in the hearing from Ludhiana and Chandigarh, respectively.
5. The CPIO submitted that before the appellant’s retirement, his late wife’s name was part of the application form for the Retired Employee Medical Benefit Scheme. After retirement, the appellant remarried and wrote to the bank to include the name of his second wife in the relevant forms. The appellant alleged that his second wife’s name was not included in the Retired Employees’ Medical Benefit Scheme and, therefore, she could not get any medical benefits. The appellant further submitted that benefits under the pension scheme and Mutual Welfare Scheme had been given by the public authority.
6. The CPIO submitted that pursuant to the FAA’s direction vide letters dated 14 January 2013 and 5 April 2013 complete information i.e., date of formation of the Retired Employees’ Medical Benefit Scheme and its regulations/circulars had been provided to the appellant. The CPIO accepted the fact that, as per records, no provisions had been enacted by the public authority to make any amendments in the application form for the Retired Employee Medical Benefit Scheme.
7. The appellant’s grievance was taken up with the Head Office and vide letter dated 17 August 2012, the Head Office had rejected the appellant’s request for medical benefits for to his second wife, as it was not covered under the Retired Employee Medical Benefit Scheme. This position was communicated to the appellant vide their letter HR/RKA/1143 dated September 26, 2012.
8. The Commission is satisfied by the CPIO’s submissions that the information as held by the public authority has been provided to the appellant. The present appeal is dismissed.
Citation: Shri R. K. Verma v. State Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000706/MP