Applicant’s mother’s name was removed from the nominee list of his deceased father’s service records & second wife was shown as nominee - Information pertaining nomination of wife for gratuity payment was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: Take assistance u/s 5(4)

Information Sought

The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to his father late Shri Dev Narayan Yadav, Ex-DGM, BSNL:

1. Copy of document submitted by him with regard to nomination of his wife Mrs. Promila Yadav for gratuity payment.

2. On 14-03-1996, Mr. Dev Narayana Yadav submitted another nomination form, wherein Mrs. Indira Yadav and Hemant Kumar Yadav have been shown as nominees. In this regard, provide following information:

(i) Whether before the removal of the name of Mrs. Promila Yadav from the nomination form, any death certificate or court Order for divorce had been submitted? If yes, then provide copies of the same.

(ii) Whether any certificate of marriage of Mr. Dev Narayana Yadav with Indira Yadav had been submitted? If yes, then provide a copy of the same.

(iii) Provide copies of the documents submitted by Mr. Dev Narayana Yadav in support of details of his family members.

3. Provide copy of the new nomination form submitted on 23/03/2017 by Mr. Dev Narayan Yadav.

4. And other related information.

Grounds for filing Second Appeal

The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that the present RTI application is not same as the RTI application in case no. CIC/BSNLD/A/2019/651659 as mentioned by the respondent. The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was provided vide letter dated 07.08.2020.

Observations:

Basically the appellant is aggrieved as his mother’s name was removed from the nominee list of his deceased father’s service records and the second wife Mrs. Indira Yadav was shown as nominee.

The CPIO vide written submissions dated 05.03.2022 submitted that the appellant had sought similar information from CCA Lucknow on 28.07.2020 and the same was replied to on 11.08.2020.

On 17.06.2021, in case no. CIC/BSNLD/A/2020/651659 the same appellant was given relief. Therefore, the Commission examined both the RTI applications and found that the information sought is not identical as claimed by the CPIO.

Be that as it may, the letter dated 11.08.2020 covers the present RTI application. The same shows that the reply dated 07.08.2020, was incorrect.

Decision:

As the letter dated 11.08.2020 was given by CCA Lucknow office and they are the custodian, the present CPIO is directed to take assistance from the custodian u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act and take an updated reply from them and send the same to the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Hemant Kumar Yadav v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in File No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2020/686741, Date of Decision: 10/03/2022