Information related to the transfer of employees on medical grounds

Background

The appellant sought information related to the transfer of employees on medical grounds. The Public information Officer (PIO) provided part information and denied the information related to the competent authority, who approved the transfer on the said grounds and the medical history/ condition of an employee 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. 

View of CIC

The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed to inform the appellant whether the transfer of the third party was on medical grounds and the designation of the competent authority who gave approval for the transfer on the said grounds. However the Commission supported the decision of PIO for denial of the medical history/ condition of an employee 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.

Comments

When the personal information of an employee is used for a public activity, a PIO is often in the state of a dilemma whether such an information should be disclosed. In most cases the CIC has held that if a concession is granted to an individual, the information because of which the concession is granted is liable to be put up in the public domain.

Citation: Shri Mushtaq Mohammed v. LIC of India in File No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001692