Information relating to a deceased employee like the amount of last pension drawn and disbursed, mode of disbursement, address of the pensioner etc. was denied u/s 8(1)(e) - FAA denied information u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: denial upheld u/s 8(1)(j)
1 Mar, 2014Facts:
1. The appellant Shri E. Vedagiri has submitted RTI application dated 24 August 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chennai, seeking information relating to Shri K.N. Ramanathan, a former employee of the LIC of India through total of 05 points:
i. Amount of last pension drawn and disbursed.
ii. Mode of disbursement.
iii. If it was paid by cheque, cheque no., date and amount last drawn and paid.
iv. The address of the LIC pensioner to which the last pension cheque was sent.
v. The date of realization of the last cheque referred to above in the bank.
2. Vide CPIO order dated 21 September 2012, CPIO denied the requisite 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; of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred first appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dated 03 October 2012.
4. Vide FAA order dated 02 November 2012, the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO and informed the appellant that it was not possible for them to provide the information as sought by the appellant as per 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. 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.
5. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the Public Authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
6. The matter was heard today. Shri Vedgiri was present at the hearing. Mrs. Asha Nair through Manager (CRM), CPIO from LIC along with Ms. D. Apitha, Administrative Officer attended the hearing. The appellant stated that he desired information respect of the pension payment and mode of payment in respect of one Late Shri K.N. Ramanathan. The respondents had denied the information under 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. 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. being third party information. During the hearing, however, the respondents stated that Late Shri Ramanathan’s monthly pension was Rs. 5973/- and that Sh. Ramanathan had expired on 17.12.2004. The pension vouchers are maintained only for four years. Therefore, the LIC does not have any detailed information. The appellant was satisfied with this position.
Decision notice
7. Keeping the spirit of the RTI, the respondents of their own volition gave some available information to the appellant. The decision of the CPIO, however, in not providing remaining 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. 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. is upheld.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri E. Vedagiri v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000044/MP