Rules for availing compensatory leave for working Saturday, Sunday and holidays and the reasons for not allowing to take compensatory leave in tabular form were sought - CIC: Exempt u/S 8(1)(j) as being related to the personal information of third parties
6 Nov, 2021Information sought:
The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 31.01.2020 seeking following information:-
1. “Rules for availing compensatory leave for working Saturday, Sunday and holidays and for calendar year 2017 to 2019, How many staffs of Regional Centre, Koraput are allowed or not allowed to take compensatory leave with their details in the following tabular form.
Regional Centre, Koraput are allowed or not allowed to take compensatory leave with their details in the following tabular form.
Sl No.
Name of the staff
Designation
Working day and date
Leave day and date
me gap
Reason for not allowing
Name of the Regional Director
Remarks
2. Arrears such as 7th pay, MACP, promo on, HR revision, etc. received by the individual staff members of Regional Centre, Koraput from the calendar year 2016 to 2019 may be provided with the following tabular form.
Who will be responsible for the loss of interest amount incurred ll the superannuation of the NPS holder employee whose amount deposited in late.
Sl No.
Name of the staff
Designation
Letter Received Date
Amount deposit date
me gap
Name of the Regional Director
Reason for delay
Remarks
3. Detail of the leave (CL/EL/Official tours etc.) records of Regional Directors of the Regional Centre, Koraput of calendar year from 2017 to 2019. Provide the photocopies of the circular of the leave information circulated among the staff members where all staff members put their signature by mail or hard copies.”
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant online. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 03.03.2020. FAA’s order dated 13.03.2020 directed the PIO & RD Koraput to respond to the appellant within seven days from the date of receipt of the order.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with non-receipt of desired information, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Dr. Raja Gopal, Regional Director & PIO present through audio conference.
The Complainant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and the information sought for has not been provided in the tabular format as desired by him. The PIO submitted that the available information along with detailed clarification was provided to the Appellant.
Decision
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the reply provided by the CPIO adequately suffices the clarificatory nature of the information sought for in the RTI Application. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the details of the staff sought for in the RTI Application also stands 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. 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 as being related to the personal information of the third parties.
In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 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…”
In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds the instant complaint bereft of merit.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Sudhir Kumar Beura v. Indira Gandhi National Open University in File No: CIC/IGNOU/C/2020/676247; Date of Decision : 20/09/2021