Pension and basic pay details of her late father was considered as personal information as after death of the appellant’s father, information now pertains to her mother; Disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest; Exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

O R D E R

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:

Please provide following information in respect of my father Late Gopal Shridhar Athalye's pension PPO No AGC 249, Retired from AG office Nagpur on 30th Nov 1979:

1) Please provide copy of the PPO and all further revision letters or SSA's sent to CPAO from your office.

2) Please provide details of basic pay , and post held by him with pay scale at retirement.

3) Please provide details if any SSA issued for 6cpc and 7cpc revisions on his pension.

4) Please provide 12 digit PPO number allotted for his old PPO no AGC249.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

यह संबंध में सूचित किया जाता है कि मांगी गई जानकारी आपकी माता श्रीमती शकुंतला श्रीधर आठेकर से संबंधित व्यक्तिगत जानकारी है। इसलिए, यह जानकारी सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 की धारा 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. के अंतर्गत प्रदान नहीं की जा सकती।

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.06.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.06.2024 stated that:

Your RTI appeal pertains to Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E)- II, Maharashtra, Nagpur. Your RTI appeal has already been transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to O/o PAG (A&E)-II, Maharashtra, Nagpur vide this office letter No. 1826-RTI/1346-2024 dated 13.06.2024 under intimation to you vide letter No. 1827-RTI/1346-2024 dated 13.06.2024.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated Nil.

5. The Complainant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. J.P Gupta, Sr. Dy. accountant General, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought pension and basic pay details of her father late Gopal Shridhar Athalye’s which was considered as personal information as after death of the appellant’s father, information sought now pertains to her mother i.e Smt Shakuntala, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act has been sought. A written submission dated 07.05.2025 of the respondent has been taken on record.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the respondent has provided a reply to the complainant vide letter dated 11.06.2024. It is not the case that the respondent has not given any reply to the Complainant and no mala fide could be attributed to the decision taken by them. Further, in the absence of the complainant or any additional objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent are taken on record. That being so and the reply having been given to the complainant, there appears to be no merit in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.

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

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Meenakshi Sagdeo v. Office of the Principal Accountant General, Complaint No. CIC/CAGIN/C/2024/628996; Date of Decision: 23.05.2025