2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3798
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
Neelam Mahajan – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
CIC/SBIND/A/2023/103424
The request for pension details by the wife of a retired employee is considered third-party information and exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Disclosure of pension details sought by the wife of a retired employee - CPIO denied information citing third-party exemption - The Commission held that the request for pension details constitutes third-party information and is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. (Paras 2, 4, 10, 11)
(B) Personal Information - The Commission reiterated that personal information is protected from unwarranted invasion of privacy unless larger public interest is established. (Paras 10, 11)
(C) Public Interest - The Commission emphasized that private disputes do not constitute public interest sufficient to override the exemption under Section 8(1)(j). (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant, the wife of a retired employee, sought month-wise pension details from the CPIO, which was denied on the grounds of third-party information exemption. The First Appellate Authority upheld this decision.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the pension details requested are indeed third-party information and thus exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j).
Issues: The main issues were whether the Appellant, as the wife of the account holder, is entitled to the pension details and the applicability of third-party information exemption.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the request for pension details is third-party information and does not meet the criteria for disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, emphasizing that personal information is protected unless a larger public interest is demonstrated.
Result: Appeal disposed of accordingly.
ORDER1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.04.2022 seeking the following information:
“Month-wise details of pension credited into saving bank A/C no. 1072XXXXX4 in r/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mahajan, AEE (E) Retd. HPSEB, (PPO No. 6822/HPSEB) from May 2014 to till date authorized vide letter no. HPSEB/F&A/Pen/2014/51876-77 dated 25.03.2014.”
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.05.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:- “The sought information is exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.06.2022. The FAA vide order dated 08.07.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.10.2022 stating inter alia as under:
“5. That Aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2022 Passed by the C.P.I.O., filed First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority, C.P.I.O. wrongly and illegally withheld the information Sought by the applicant being wife of Ramesh Kumar Mahajan Account holder of Account No.10723115814, on the ground that sought information pertains to third party which is exempted U/s 8 (1) (i) of R.T.I. Act. In this Context, it is submitted that aforesaid ground Viz. third party information is not applicable, in case the wife of Account holder, who is seeking information from the Bank where her husband is maintaining his account in view of the settled position of law in this regard which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
(a). Appellant/applicant is entitle to seek sought informs in view of the judgment /delivered dated 07.01.2014 Hon'ble Central Information Commission, New Delhi In a case titled as Jyoti Seherawat Vs Home ( General) Deptt GNCID (file No.CIC/AD/A 2012/003341-S.A…
(b) In another case titled as Smt. Sunita Vs Pawan Kumar Jain -2018 (3) RCR (Civil) 15 M.P. in the said case, it has been held as under:
Wife is entitle to remuneration of husband under R.T.I. Act" 6. That the Instant Appeal has been filed within the statutory period. In view of the aforesaid well settled position of law to the effect that wife is entitled to know remuneration of husband under R.T.I. Act so, it was imperative and incumbent Firstly, upon C.P.I.O. First Appellate Authority to furnish sough information to wife of the Account holder. As Such, the C.P.I.O. cannot invoke the third party information in order to deny the sought information by the Appellant / Applicant… Further, it is not out of place to mention here that First, Appellate Authority did not even discuss two judgments Cited in Para No.5 of the First Appeal which are squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand thereby, the first Appellate Authority Intentionally and knowingly passed by the aforesaid two judgments.
Had the First Appellate Authority taken into Consideration, the law laid down In the said judgments there was no occasion for the First Appellate Authority to upheld the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Ld. C.P.I.O. and to dismiss the First Appeal of the Appellant.
In view of the facts and Circumstances and position of law narrated hereinbefore, it is most respectfully prayed that Second Appeal may kindly be accepted and Sought informations which were wrongly and illegally denied to the Appellant may kindly be provided to the Appellant at the earliest in the interest of justice..”
5. The Appellant was represented by Advocate S M Wadehra and on behalf of the Respondent, Rajesh, Regional Manager & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Rep. of the Appellant urged that the grounds of second appeal be taken into consideration for ordering relief in the matter.
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and submitted that the pension related information of a third party cannot be provided to her.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
