CIC: Information regarding PPO issued in respect of Pre 2016 pensioner whose pension has been revised with reference to F.D. Fir. letter 22372016-lPension (FD) is personal information of third party; It is exempt from disclosure u/S 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act

O R D E R

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o. the Pr. Accountant General (A&E), Chandigarh. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

“Kindly arrange to supply me detail of PPO issued in respect of Pre 2016 pensioner whose pension/ family pension has been revised with reference to F.D. Fir. letter 22372016-lPension (FD) dated 27 -05-2019”

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 14-02-2020 reply is as under “Clarification from Finance Deptt. Haryana Govt. has been sought with regard to Haryana Govt. Notification dated 27.05.2019, which is still awaited further it is intimated that information/details regarding revision of pension cases is not kept in the desired format/manner. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 20-02-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide letter dated 13-03-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:
3. The appellant was not present despite notice. The respondent, Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. AO attended the hearing through video-conferencing. Shri D Rajashekhar, CPIO was not present in the hearing. He contacted in the office of the Commission after the hearing was over.

4. The written submissions of the respondent are taken on record.

5. The respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the reply given by the CPIO wherein they have informed the appellant that ‘Clarification from Finance Deptt, Haryana Govt. has been sought with regard to Haryana Govt. Notification dated 27.05.2019, which is still awaited. Further, it is intimated that information/details regarding revision of pension cases is not kept in the desired format/manner’.

Further, the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant in his second appeal has aggrieved that information has not been provided to him by the respondent. The Commission observes that the respondent in its reply has informed the appellant that ‘Clarification from Finance Deptt, Haryana Govt. has been sought with regard to Haryana Govt. Notification dated 27.05.2019, which is still awaited.
Further, it is intimated that information/details regarding revision of pension cases is not kept in the desired format/manner’. The Commission observes that the reply of the CPIO is incomplete and not correct. The appellant is seeking information of other pensioners viz. detail of PPO issued in respect of Pre 2016 pensioner whose pension/ family pension has been revised with reference to F.D. Fir. letter 22372016-lPension (FD) dated 27-05-2019 and the same is personal information of third party, which is exempted 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. of the RTI Act but the respondent has merely stated that such information is not maintained in the desired format. The respondent should have given the meticulous reply to the appellant on his RTI application. Nonetheless, the information sought cannot be furnished to the appellant on his RTI application under the RTI Act. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Neeraj Kumar Gupta

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. Jagmindar Aggarwal v. Pr. Accountant General in Second Appeal No. CIC/CAGIN/A/2020/115924, Date of order: 22-04-2022