Information about a pensioner’s account was denied u/s 8(1)(e) - Appellant claimed that his grandfather had passed away and he suspects that some unauthorized person(s) may have drawn the pension in his grandfather’s name - CIC: denial upheld
13 Nov, 2013Information sought:
The appellant had sought information about his grandfather Shri Vindhyavasini Lal who was a Railway Employee and retired from Varanai on 31/01/1986 and died on 16/04/2012. He was getting pension from Salempur Post Office in the account no. 60144, kindly provide following information: 1- How much pension and arrear he has drawn during the period 01/02/1986 to 31/03/2012? 2- My grandfather died on 16/04/2012, whether his pension for March 2012 was paid or not? 3- Copy of pension and withdrawal form filled by my father for the period 01/02/1986 to 31/03/2012. 4- Whether pension of April 2012 was paid or not? If paid then to whom and under what circumstances?
Grounds for the Second Appeal: PIO refused to give information under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; & section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of RTI act, 2005
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Anurag Kumar Srivastava through VC
Respondent: Mr. V.K. Singh CPIO through VC
The appellant stated that his grandfather, who has passed away, was drawing pension from the postal department and he has requested for information relating to his account as he suspects that some unauthorized person(s) may have drawn the pension in his grandfather’s name. The CPIO stated that the appellant is neither a nominee nor holds a succession certificate and the information cannot be provided to him being exempt under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. He further stated that there is a family dispute regarding the properties of the deceased and the post office cannot be dragged into any such litigation.
Decision notice:
The Commission in the past has held that accounts of customers/subscribers maintained at post offices/banks are held under fiduciary relationship and hence information relating to such accounts is exempt from disclosure to third party under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act unless the seeker of information is able to show larger public interest to justify the disclosure. The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Anurag Kumar Srivastava v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001562/3657