The amount of pension being received by the appellants wife after taking VRS was denied on the ground of its being third party information – CIC: Provide information about the pension received, if any, within 15 days of the receipt of the order
1. The appellant submitted RTI application dated June 19, 2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Jaipur; seeking information regarding details of retirement benefits received or being received by his wife Smt. Kamlesh Bhalla etc.; through a total of 12 points.
2. Vide letters dated July 14, 2014; the CPIO furnished information regarding branch where his wife was last posted, salary details of last three month before taking VRS, leave availed by her and her tenure at Ahmedabad and denied rest of the points 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, 2005. Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply on point nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 & 12, the appellant preferred an appeal dated August 27, 2014 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated September 16, 2014; the FAA upheld the CPIO's decision.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted he had sought details of retirement benefits being received by his wife Smt. Kamlesh Bhalla after taking VRS from the SBI but the respondents had not provided him complete information as sought by him. He stated that respondents had not provided him information on point nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 & 12 on the ground of its being third party information. He stated that his employer i.e. Central Bank of India had already provided the same information about him to the respondent under RTI Act, 2005, therefore, he should also be provided the same to fight a case in the court of law against his wife.
5. The respondents submitted that they had provided a point wise reply to the appellant and furnished all the disclosable information i.e. salary for last three months and the copy of the leave record to him. They had only denied information which was in the nature of personal information of their former employee i.e. the appellant’s wife.
6. After hearing both the parties and perusing the records, the Commission directs the respondent to provide information regarding amount of pension being received by Smt. Kamlesh Bhalla, if any with reference to point 3 of the RTI application to the appellant within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The Commission upholds the respondent’s decision on rest of the points. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Gulshan Kumar Bhalla v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/0002471