Details of retirement benefits like provident fund, gratuity & other terminal financial benefits paid to a Development officer due to his voluntary retirement was denied to his wife u/s 8(1)(j) – CIC: Inform about the monthly pension being paid
1. The appellant submitted RTI application dated January 24, 2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Hospet; seeking information regarding details of retirement benefits like provident fund, gratuity and other terminal financial benefits paid to Shri. S.G. Mallikarjuna, Development officer, Branch Hospet, due to his voluntary retirement through a total of 4 points.
2. Vide letter dated February 28, 2014, the CPIO denied the information sought 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 treating it as personal information of third party. Not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO concerned, the appellant preferred an appeal dated March 15, 2014 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated March 21, 2014; the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO.
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’s representative submitted that the appellant is the legally wedded wife of the third party about whose retirement benefits she had sought for but the respondents had wrongly denied it by treating it as personal information of the third party.
5. The respondents submitted that on 29.1.2014, they had asked the third party about disclosure of the information sought by the appellant but he refused to give his consent for the same. Accordingly, they had denied the information to the appellant vide their letter dated 28.2.2014 and the FAA had also upheld the same. The third party i.e. Shri. S.G. Mallikarjuna was also present during the hearing and he also denied his consent to give the information to the appellant and stated that he had already submitted all the details about his retirement benefits in the court of law where he was fighting a case with the appellant.
5. After hearing both the parties, the Commission directs the respondents to inform the appellant about the monthly pension being paid to the appellant’s husband within 7 days of the receipt of the Commission’s order. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Smt. Asha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001590