##PAGE1##

के ኚ᭾ीय सूचना आयोग

Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka

नई नि्ቤी, New Delhi – 110067

File No: CIC/MOSPI/A/2025/114665

Ravi Halemani .….अपीलक

VERSUS

बनाम

CPIO : Ministry of Statistics &

Programme Implementation, ….्ቚनर्वािीगण /RESPONDENT

National Statistics office, Field

Operations Division, O/o Dy.

Director (IIO)/RTI, NSSO Bhawan,

Plot No-73, Survey No.550, 2nd

Cross, Bhagyalaxmi Nagar, Hubli-

580031

Date of Hearing : 06-07-2026

Date of Decision : 06-07-2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Khushwant Singh Sethi

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 24-02-2025

CPIO replied on : 14-03-2025

First appeal filed on : 21-03-2025

First Appellate Authority’s order : 11-04-2025

2 nd Appeal dated : 08-05-2025

CIC/MOSPI/A/2025/114665 Page 1 of 5

1 / 6

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24-02-2025 (Copy not

available in the Commission record.) for seeking the information and the CPIO

furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14-03-2025. The Information sought and

reply given in this regard is as under:

“Reply: In response to your RTI application no.

MOSPI/R/E/25/00220 dated 24.02.2025, seeking information

regarding the detailed medical claim statements for all the

employees whose claims were sanctioned at the NSO(FOD) Regional

Office in Hubballi during the period from June 2024 to February

2025, It is to inform that the sanctioned medical bills for the above

mentioned period are enclosed herewith.”

2. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21-03-2025.

The FAA vide its order dated 11-04-2025, upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission

with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Mr. Mahadevappa, Deputy Director, attended the hearing

through video conference.

4. The Respondent submitted, that the appellant sought information

regarding the medical claim statements of all the employees, whose claims

were sanctioned at the NSO(FOD) Regional Office in Hubballi, during the period

from June, 2024 to February, 2025. The respondent submitted, that they had

CIC/MOSPI/A/2025/114665 Page 2 of 5

2 / 6

provided information that there were a total of 08 claims during the aforesaid

period, and they had provided the sought claim statements to the appellant,

vide letter dated 14.03.2025.

5. Written submission dated 02.07.2026, filed by the respondent is taken on

record, and relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:

“2. After examining the request, the disclosable information

relating to sanction orders/PFMS bills was furnished. However,

detailed employee-wise medical reimbursement records were

denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, as they contain

personal information relating to third-party employees.

3. The information sought pertains to individual medical

treatment, diagnosis, hospitalization, and reimbursement claims.

Disclosure of such information would amount to an unwarranted

invasion of the privacy of the concerned employees.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v.

CIC (2013), Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam (2018), and CPIO, Supreme

Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019), has consistently

held that personal and medical information of employees is

exempt from disclosure unless a demonstrable larger public

interest exists.”

Decision:

6. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the

case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the

CIC/MOSPI/A/2025/114665 Page 3 of 5

3 / 6

sought information pertains to personal information in respect of third-parties,

and hence, the same is exempted U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The

Commission further finds, that the respondent has already provided the sought

medical claim statements to the appellant, vide letter dated 14.03.2025.

Therefore, no further relief is warranted. Accordingly, the