Appellant: local conveyance charges is being misused & Rs. 180/ are being reimbursed for movement of officials between offices even if the distance between the two offices is a few hundred metres - CIC is not competent to go into such allegations
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 31.5.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on thirteen points regarding local conveyance expenditure reimbursement and deduction from the provident fund of a third party employee of the public authority. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he filed second appeal dated 21.11.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 2.12.2013.
2. The Appellant prayed for direction to the Respondents to provide information in response to points No. A (VII) and B (1) of the RTI application. The Respondents submitted that in response to point A (VII), they had stated that reimbursement for local conveyance was being made as per banking practice and the local conveyance amount was paid according to the actual distance travelled and amount incurred by the staff as per local traffic rules. The Appellant alleged that the facility of reimbursement of local conveyance charges is being misused and Rs. 180/ are being reimbursed for movement of officials from one office to another even in cases, where the distance between the two offices is a few hundred metres. The Commission is not competent to go into such allegations, but would advise the Respondents to look into the matter. In so far as the RTI request is concerned, the CPIO is directed to state categorically, in response to point A (VII), whether there is any circular governing reimbursement of the local conveyance charges and, if so, provide a certified copy of the same to the Appellant free of cost.
3. With regard to point B (1) regarding recovery of an amount of Rs. 8300/ from the PF of a deceased third party employee, the Appellant submitted that he provided an authorization letter from the widow of the deceased employee, along with his RTI application, to receive the above information. The Respondents acknowledged that such an authorization letter was provided to them. They reiterated the CPIO’s reply that the amount of Rs. 8300/ was not deducted from the PF of the employee in question. The Appellant showed us a letter of the Respondents to the widow of the above employee, in which they had indicated that the above amount was deducted from PF. The Respondents submitted that the above response was not correct. The amount of Rs. 8300/was not deducted from PF, but from the terminal benefits of the deceased employee. In the light of the foregoing, the CPIO is directed to convey to the Appellant the specific terminal benefit from which the above amount was recovered and provide a certified copy of the rules under which the recovery was made.
4. The CPIO is further directed to comply with our above directives within fifteen days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The information should be provided free of cost.
5. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Gulshan Kumar Bhutani v. Indian Bank in File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000109