##PAGE1##

के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:330), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067

File No: CIC/SORLY/A/2024/128401

M. Rajendran .….अपीलकता(cid:330)/Appellant

VERSUS बनाम

C.P.I.O, Southern Railway

O/o the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force,

Trivandrum Division, D.R.M Office Complex, Thycaud,

Trivandrum - 695 014 ….(cid:366)ितवादी/Respondent

Date of Hearing : 16-04-2026 Date of Decision : 16-04-2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 28-03-2024 CPIO replied on : 08-05-2024 First appeal filed on : 14-05-2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 01-06-2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28-08-2024

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28-03-2024 seeking the following information:

“Brief: Based on the CPGRAMS, grievance status for registration number DOPPW/P/2023/0010814 and reply of Sr.DSC/RPF/MAS on 30.09.2023 and Appeal number MORLY/C/A/23/0005649 and reply of ADRM/MAS on 01.11.2023 on wrong pay fixation causing omission of advance two

CIC/SORLY/A/2024/128401 Page 1 of 5

1 / 6

increments. The following information is required for future reference and further proceedings.

Particulars of information required :

[1] kindly furnish photo copies of Service Record of Sri Kesavan, Retd.

ASIPF/MAS from page 01 to end page.

[2] Kindly furnish copies of superannuation settlement working sheets of Sri. Kesavan, ASIPF/MAS.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08-05-2024 stating as under:

“1. The employee's service record is subject to privacy. Due to the personal nature of service Record details, they are exempt from disclosure of

information under section 8(1)(j) of The Right to Information Act,2005.

2. The employee's settlement record is subject to privacy. Due to the personal nature of Settlement records, they are exempt from disclosure of

information under section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act,2005.”

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14-05-2024. The F.A.A vide order dated 01-06-2024 stating as under:

“I the undersigned, in the capacity of appellate authority have considered your appeal under section 19 of the RTI Act 2005. I went through your original application received dated 11.04.2024. Your original application referred to above and the reply given by the PIO has been gone through and it is seen that the ground of your appeal is that PIO had not

provided information sought under items No. 1 & 2 in the application.

In this context, the Central Information Commission/New Delhi cites the personal records in File No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2022/114136 dated 06.10.2022. The appellant quoted CIC decision of 06.12.2010. But, the latest being issued by CIC vide CIC/BCOIN/A/2022/114136 dated 06.10.2022, is having a superseding effect and the same could be

followed.

The information requested by you contains personal details of an individual. Disclosing such information falls outside the purview of the RTI Act as per section 8(1)(j), which specially exempts information related to personal matters unless it serves a larger public interest. Releasing this

CIC/SORLY/A/2024/128401 Page 2 of 5

2 / 6

information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy, which the RTI Act protects. Therefore, the information cannot be

decimated under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

For your reference, the Central Information Commission's decision in File No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2022/114136 dtd. 06.10.2022, available on the public domain, provides detailed information regarding Section 8(1)(j) of

the RTI Act,2005.

The appeal is disposed as per laid down procedure.”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.

Respondent: Shri Shamnath, Assistant Secur