Information regarding sanction of pension to an employee who retired from bank was sought claiming that though the appellant retired on the same day, there was a discrimination - CIC: no larger public interest is involved; denial u/s 8(1)(j) upheld
6 Oct, 2014Facts
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 25.6.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on six points regarding sanction of pension in respect of Shri Satya Paul Puri, who retired from the service of the bank on 31.8.2010. The CPIO responded on 3.7.2013 and denied the information under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 10.7.2013. In his order dated 25.7.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s reply and stated that the information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; & (j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal.
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information in this case. The Appellant submitted that he retired from the service of the bank, after putting in service of forty years, on 31.8.2010. Shri Satya Pal Puri also retired on the same day. The Appellant further stated that he had submitted an option for pension to the bank. Subsequently, the head office of the bank denied having received his option. He claimed that Shri Puri was also placed in a similar situation and both of them again sent their options to the head office in December 2010. However, the option of Shri Puri was accepted, while his own resubmitted option was not acted upon. The Appellant also stated that he has filed a writ petition in High Court in regard to the above discriminatory attitude of the bank towards him. The Appellant claimed that the Respondents were wrong in invoking subsections (e) & (j) of Section 8(1). He submitted that the bank does not hold the information sought by him in a fiduciary capacity and that the relationship between Shri Puri and the bank is not that of a trustee and beneficiary, but one of employee – employer.
3. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties before us. We note that the information sought by the Appellant is personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and is, therefore, exempt from disclosure under Section 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. 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. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest, warranting disclosure of the information sought by him. He needs it in connection with redressal of a personal grievance, for which he has already filed a writ petition in High Court.
4. In view of the foregoing, we see no ground to interfere with the decision of the Respondents to deny the information under Section 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. 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. in this case.
5. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Mangat Rai Sharma v. Indian Bank in File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001520/SH