Statement of the assets & liabilities of appellant’s late husband were denied u/s 8(1)(e) - PIO: appellant should give the proof of her identity - CIC: PIO to confirm the identity of the appellant from the records of the bank & then provide information
1. These files contain appeals in respect of the RTI application dated 1.10.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on two points. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, she filed second appeal dated 24.2.2014 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 4.3.2014.
2. The Appellant stated that she had sought statement of the assets and liabilities, as on 31.3.2010, of her late husband Shri Sandeep Kumar and it was denied by the CPIO under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. She further submitted that she was denied exgratia amount by the bank and she had sought certified extract of the calculation sheet, based on which the exgratia amount was denied in response to her application dated 9.4.2011. In his reply dated 6.11.2013, the CPIO mentioned the reason for denial of exgratia amount, but did not provide the calculation sheet. The Appellant also stated that she wants the statement of assets and liabilities of her late husband because it has a bearing on her request for exgratia amount. The Respondents were unable to put forth their position clearly. With regard to the statement of assets and liabilities, they stated that in case the Appellant provides proof of her identity, it can be provided to her. The Appellant stated that she has been paid the gratuity of her late husband and is also receiving family pension. Therefore, the issue of establishing her identity was not relevant. In the above context, we also fail to understand as to why the CPIO provided the reason for denial of exgratia amount, in case he was not convinced about the identity of the Appellant as the wife of late Shri Sandeep Kumar. From the above, it appears that the RTI application was responded to in a casual manner. In response to our query, the Respondents stated that they were not aware of any dispute regarding the succession of late Shri Sandeep Kumar.
3. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties before us. We direct the CPIO to confirm from the records of the bank that the Appellant is the same lady who has been paid the gratuity of late Shri Sandeep Kumar and is the recipient of the family pension. Subject to the above confirmation, the CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant the statement of assets and liabilities, as sought at point (a) of the RTI application; as well as a certified copy of the calculation sheet as sought at point (b). The above information should be provided free of cost. The CPIO is further directed to comply with our above directives within twenty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
Citation: Smt. Deepa Saxena W/o Late Sandeep Kumar v. Canara Bank in File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000647 & CIC/SH/A/2014/000919