Details of the employees in terms of their monthly salary and all its components; parents’ names; date of birth, educational and qualification details etc. were denied u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: Monthly emoluments ought to be suo motu disclosed u/s 4(1)(b)(x)
8 Jul, 2020Information sought:
The Appellant sought information pertaining to details of the employees for the period starting from 01.04.2014 till 31.03.2015 in terms of their monthly salary and all its components; parents’ names; date of birth, educational and qualification details etc.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Anil James, AE & CPIO, Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, 4-7, Karni Nagar, Bikaner present through VC.
Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO.
CPIO submitted that information sought has been denied 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. 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 in the absence of any larger public interest.
Decision
Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that the denial of information 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. 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 is appropriate since it pertains to service details of various third parties. The said observation is in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. C S Shyam (Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009) wherein the Apex Court has exemplified the scope of 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. 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 with respect to service matters of government employees as propounded earlier by a division bench of the same Court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012].
However, limited relief is permissible in the matter in terms of the monthly emoluments of these employees which ought to be suo motu disclosed by the public authority in compliance of Section 4(1)(b)(x) of RTI Act. In view of this, CPIO is directed to provide the details of monthly emoluments received by the employees for the period mentioned in the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ravi Kant Rajwanshi v. Doordarshan Maintenance Centre in File No: CIC/DGDOR/A/2018/155604, Date of Decision: 11/06/2020