Information regarding action taken on complaints pertaining to non-submission of deducted amount from increased salary in provident fund - PIO: appellant had sought views which do not fall under the purview of section 2(f) - CIC: appeal dismissed

ORDER

Facts:

1. The appellant, Shri Amrendra Kumar Ojha , submitted RTI application dated 16 February 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Patna; seeking information regarding action taken on his earlier complaints dated 30.4.2012, 14.2.2012 & 5.4.2011 pertaining to nonsubmission ofdeducted amount from his increased salary in provident fund etc., through a total of 5 points.

2. Vide reply 18 March 2013, CPIO furnished the information to the appellant on point nos. 1 & 3 but denied the information sought in point nos. 2, 4 & 5 on the ground that the requested information was in the nature of seeking opinion which is beyond the purview of ‘information’ as defined u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 25 March 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had not been provided complete information by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 17 April 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision.

3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard today. The appellant stated that he had sent three letters to the Regional Manager dated 30.4.2012, 14.2.2012 AND 5.4.2011 and he wanted to know whether all the letters were put up before the Regional Manager for necessary action and he desired to know the action taken, directions given on each letter separately. He had raised a number of questions regarding his increment, etc. He claimed that the reply given to him was incomplete as to the action that was taken on his letters.

5. The respondents stated that they had duly responded to his RTI application point wise and mentioned that it came to their notice that the deduction of Rs. 17,553/was not sent to the Regional Office by mistake. It was sent on 2.4.2011. The Regional Office asked them to fix responsibility for delayed accounting of the amount. The Manager accepted the responsibility for the delayed payment himself and personally deposited the amount of Rs.3,306/which was the amount of loss of interest. The respondents admitted that this was an oversight on their part and they had taken corrective measures. They added that in point nos. 2, 4 and 5, the appellant had sought views which do not fall under the purview of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act and they had provided all information which was available with them.

Decision Notice

6. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents. The appellant may like to approach the appropriate forum for grievances, if any. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Amrendra Kumar Ojha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001789/MP