PIO: Appellant’s income exceeds Rs. 60,000/- & hence she is not entitled for old age pension - Appellant wanted to know as to how many people in his village were denied old age pension - CIC: It is not third party information; provide it

Facts

Heard on 16.9.14. Appellant was represented by Shri Jeet Ram. Respondent is represented by Ms.Anita and Shri Akhilesh.

2. The appellant filed RTI application on 10.9.2013 seeking information with regard to rejection of her pension and default in feeding name of Shanti Devi in place of Shanta devi. Having received no reply within the prescribed period, the appellant preferred First Appeal on 17.10.2013. FAA replied on 13.11.2013 directing the PIO to provide the information within 7 days. Being unsatisfied with the information provided, the appellant preferred Second Appeal before the Commission.

3. During the hearing, the Respondent explained that initially the pension was given to those people based on a certificate from local M.L.A. More than four lakh people are getting pension and verification drive is going on and only those people whose annual income is less than Rs.60,000/- is eligible for old age pension. She also stated that verification drive is going on in full swing and old age pension were stopped to several people. She added that Appellant’s income exceeds Rs.60,000/- and hence she is not entitled for old age pension and this fact was also conveyed to the Appellant. The Appellant wanted to know as to how many people in his village were denied old age pension. The Respondent submitted that the information sought is third party.

4. The Commission after hearing the submissions made holds that the information sought does not pertain to third party and directs the PIO to provide the information as available in the website after informing the Appellant the amount to be deposited within one week of receipt of this order. The information shall be supplied within three weeks of receipt of amount from the Appellant. If nothing is heard from the Appellant within two months of receipt of this order, it will be construed that Appellant is not interested in the information and accordingly the case will be closed.

5. The Commission ordered accordingly.

(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shanta Devi v. Social Welfare Dept., GNCTD in Case No.CIC/SA/A/2013/000104