Information regarding other officials of Postal Assistant working in operative offices and whose induction training period has been counted for financial upgradation - CIC: Details of other officials contains their personal information exempt u/s 8(1)(j)
25 Jul, 2022Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.03.2021 seeking the following information:
“………Kindly refer Directorate letter no. X-44/2/201-SPN-II dated 18.11.2020 along with L NO. 44- 2/2011-SPB-I1 dated 05.05.2016 regarding Counting of Induction training period for grant of financial up gradation under TBOP/BCR Scheme and Supply the list of eligible officials for regularization of the period of induction training of Postal Assistant (Direct Recruits) working in operative offices, undergone prior to 1986 for the purpose of qualifying service under TBOP/BCR Scheme as clarified by the Directorate, Department of Posts, New Delhi.”
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 30.03.2021 stating as follows:-
“………it is to intimate that the information sought by you is not available in material form hence cannot be supplied.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.04.2021. FAA’s order dated 19.04.2021 held as follows:-
“………the appeal and other relevant records of the case and found that the CPIO/SPOs Nanded has not provided the information as it is not available in the material form as per RTI Act, 2005. As the information is not available with CPIO, he has not supplied.”
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal for non-receipt of information from the CPIO on the following grounds –
“…..That the required information is related with some pensioners regarding their Counting of lnduction training period (While they were working in operative offices) for grant of financial up gradation under TBOP/BCR Scheme in accordance with the Directorate's orders no. X- 44/2011-SPN-II dated 30.03.2021.
7. That the numbers of beneficiary's officials/pensioners are not known these orders, some may be expired and SPO's Nanded is not taking any cognizance to draw the arrears, so my purpose is that to get the list of the eligible officials/pensioners and pursue the matter with the administration through Pensioners Association and try to draw all arrears of the Pensioners family pensioners
8. xxxxxxxxxx
9. Sir, l am also one of the beneficiaries, so I have requested to the SPO's Nanded vide my Request Application dated 12.02.2021 regarding Counting lnduction training period for grant of financial up gradation under TBOP/BCR Scheme in accordance with the Directorate's orders dated 30.03.2021 and draw my arrears, Reminder also issued on 05.04.2021 but I am very sorry to state here that till this date the SPO's Nanded has not taken any decision on my application or not any reply received to me whether I am eligible or not for this financial up gradation….”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio/video conference.
Respondent: M M Patel, SSPO & CPIO present through audio/video conference.
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 08.06.2022 and submitted that a timely factual response has already been provided to the Appellant. He further apprised the Commission that even otherwise, the financial upgradation along with release of arrears payment has already been made in favour of the Appellant in May, 2022.
To a query from the Commission, the Appellant stated that he has sought information regarding other eligible officials of Postal Assistant (Direct Recruits) working in operative offices and whose induction training period has been counted for financial upgradation under TBOP/BCR, prior to 1986; however the details of such officials have not been provided to him till date. In response to it, the Commission counselled the Appellant that details of other officials contains the elements of their personal information which is squarely hit by 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 RTI Act.
Decision
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission observes from perusal of records that the details of other eligible officials (except for the Appellant) as sought for through the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of third parties which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein while explaining the import of “personal information” envisaged 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 RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India &Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive…” (Emphasis Supplied)
Nonetheless, the reply supplemented with further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing to assist the Appellant is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
However, to allay the apprehension of the Appellant, the CPIO is directed firstly to provide a copy of written submission dated 08.06.2022 along with a copy of relevant correspondences/information concerning the financial upgradation and payment of arrears concerning the Appellant only.
The above said information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: A P Wagawad v Department of Posts in File No : CIC/POSTS/A/2021/119953, Date of Decision : 15/06/2022