##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/WRAIL/A/2024/130737

Shri Javed G Shaikh .….अपीलकता(cid:330)/Appellant

VERSUS

बनाम

C.P.I.O,

Office of the DRM,

Western Railway, Mumbai Central,

Mumbai-400008 ….(cid:366)ितवादी/Respondent

Date of Hearing : 04-05-2026

Date of Decision : 04-05-2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 22-07-2024

CPIO replied on : 30-07-2024

First appeal filed on : 05-08-2024

First Appellate Authority’s order : 20-08-2024

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23-09-2024

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22-07-2024 seeking the

following information:

“1. Please do provide on roll muster hard copy of employee as per the unit

wise, Navapur, Vyara, Sindhkheda, Dharangaon all master copy gang wise

and artesian staff, and Trolley man from period of Jan 24 to Jun 24

I, need information in hard copy on mentioned address if the information

have no. of pages then please do provide in electronic means of

communication on my Email id as per the Extend rule.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30-07-2024 stating as

under:

CIC/SORLY/A/2024/128389 Page 1 of 4

1 / 5

“With reference to the above subject, as per para RTIA rules 8 (j) the

required information cannot be given as related to 3rd party.”

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05-08-2024. The F.A.A vide order

dated 20-08-2024 stating as under:

“On the basis of the above observation and remarks provided by the PIO

and Divisional Engineer (East) the information sought by the appellant,

Shri Javed G Shaikh, is denied as per Section 8(1) (j) & (e) of the RTI Act

2005.”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission

with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Shri Sukra Kachhap, ADEN & representative of the PIO present

through Video-Conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing

the same in CIC on 23.09.2024 is not available on record. Respondent

confirms non-service.

6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.

7. Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they have

categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him

is personal information of third parties, which are exempted from

disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. FAA had also upheld the

reply given by the PIO.

Decision:

8. The Commission has carefully considered the records of the case and the

submissions made by the Respondent during the hearing. At the outset,

it is observed that the Appellant has sought copies of on-roll muster

sheets/unit-wise master copies of gang-wise employees, artisan staff and

trolley men for the period January 2024 to June 2024. The nature of the

information sought clearly involves details of individual employees, which

may include their attendance, deployment, and other service-related

particulars.

CIC/SORLY/A/2024/128389 Page 2 of 4

2 / 5

9. The Respondent has denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the

RTI Act, 2005 and the same has been upheld by the First Appellate

Authority. The Commission finds merit in the contention of the

Respondent. The information sought pertains to third-party personal

information of employees, the disclosure of which has no demonstrable

relationship to any larger public interest. Disclosure of such records would

amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy of the concerned employees.

10. In this context, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs

Subhash Chandra Agarwal, wherein it was held that personal information

relating to individuals is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j)

unless a larger public interest justifies such disclosure. Further, the