PIO did not provide the details of working of upgradation of Grade Pay of a retired official as the third party objected to disclosure - CIC found no ground to provide any relief as no public interest was involved in the case
9 Jan, 2023Information Sought:
The Appellant has made a reference to letter No.SM -04/13/2015 dated 9th November, 2020 issued by the Ministry of Science & Technology and letter No. J. 1794/2158- 7th CPC dated 10.11.2020 forwarded by the Surveyor General of India. With reference to the same, appellant has sought the following information:
- Provide details of working of upgradation of Grade Pay with effect from 01.01.2016 in respect of Mr. C .P. Yadav, officials presently working and officials since retired.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the exemption was claimed with a misplaced understanding of the RTI Act. The information sought is related to grade pay of a retired employee which is public information and cannot be denied.
The CPIO reiterated the written submissions dated 06.12.2022.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 17.08.2021 replied to the appellant and denied the information sought stating that the same is related to third party and cannot be given. The FAA vide order dated 14.09.2021 held that the information sought is exempted. However, the FAA directed the CPIO to provide information to the appellant after taking consent from the third party.
The third party vide letter dated 10.12.2022 objected to the disclosure of his information. The CPIO thereafter stated that consent was sought from the third party but as there was objection from the third party in terms of disclosure of information and hence, the information was denied.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no ground to provide any relief as no public interest was involved in this case and grade pay upgradation of a particular individual is personal to him. Moreover, the third party objected to the sharing of his information and this was accepted and acted upon by the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: P S Bhandari v. Survey of India, File no.: - CIC/SOIND/A/2021/154774; Date of Decision: 15/12/2022