Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 20426
W.P.(C) 5783/2022
Page 1 of 8
$~42
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P.(C) 5783/2022
BACHAN SINGH RANA
..... Petitioner
Through:
Mr.
Aditi
Gupta,
Advocate.
(M:9811046710)
versus
CPIO, ESTABLISHMENT SECTION I AND II, ALL INDIA
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND ORS... Respondents
Through:
Mr. V.S.R. Krishna & Mr. V.
Shashank
Kumar,
Advocates.
(M:9891205519)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ADITI GUPTA
Information sought by an individual about their own salary and benefits is not personal information and must be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Headnote:
RTI - PERSONAL INFORMATION - PUBLIC DOMAIN - [SUMMARY] The Delhi High Court held that information sought by an individual about their own salary and benefits is not personal information and must be disclosed under the RTI Act. However, information that is already in the public domain, such as general rules and guidelines, need not be provided.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a former employee of AIIMS, filed an RTI application seeking details of his salary, allowances, and other benefits. The CPIO and Cash Section, AIIMS, denied the information on the grounds of being personal or in the public domain.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the information sought by the Petitioner, which was denied on the ground of being personal information, shall be supplied to him by the Cash Section AIIMS. Insofar as the remaining information is concerned, they relate to the general information which has been rightly held to be in public domain.
Issues: Whether the information sought by the Petitioner is personal information and exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information from disclosure. However, the Court held that the information sought by the Petitioner, which concerned his own salary and benefits, was not personal information and must be disclosed.
Final Decision: The Court directed the Cash Section, AIIMS to provide the Petitioner with the information sought within two weeks.
%
10.01.2023
1.
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2.
The Petitioner – Bachan Singh Rana has filed the present petition
seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 11th February, 2022 passed
by the Central Information Commission (CIC).
3.
The case of the Petitioner is that vide the said impugned order
information sought by the Petitioner in his RTI application has not been
provided and the matter has been closed on the grounds of res judicata and
by recording that the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) has
already disclosed the information which is available in its records. The
operative portion of the impugned order passed by the CIC is set out below:
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2024 at 11:43:46
Page 2 of 8
“From the facts available in the file and in light of the
arguments presented by both the parties during
hearing, it is clear that in context of the Application
submitted by the Applicant, the information was sent to
him through letter dated 22.07.2020 and through letter
dated 15.09.2020 revised pointwise information related
to Cash Department was sent by the First Appellate
Authority, Financial Advisor. It is worth mentioning
that under the provisions of section 2(h) of Right to
Information Act, a Public Information Officer can
provide only the information available in the form of
material in the records of the authority concerned.
Subsequently, it is also clear after the examination of
the records of the Commission that another Second
Appeal No. CIC/AIIMS/A/2019/113391 filed by the
applicant in respect of the information sought through
the application submitted by the applicant, has been
disposed of by the Commission by Order dated
09.03.2021. Therefore, the present case is also res
judicata. As per the opinion of the Commission, the
information which was available in the records and
eligible to be provided has been provided to the
Applicant as sought by him through his application.
Therefore, there is no need for the intervention of the
Commission in this matter.
As above, the present Appeal is disposed of.”
4.
The case of the Petitioner is that he was working in the engineering
department of AIIMS. He had certain disputes against AIIMS relating to his
services which were pending before the labour courts. In view of the same,
the Petitioner filed an RTI application seeking the following information:
“Point No.1 :- Please provide complete details of
payment of salary separately paid each month per year
from date 01-06-2003 to January 2010 to Shri Bachan
Singh, TS-98 DWD 047, ex-employee of AIIMS
Engineering
department
(Refrigeration
and
Air
conditioning subdivision) the Basic wages paid to the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2024 at 11:43:46
Page 3 of 8
Mechanics for the period 2003 to 2015 as regularized
by the department, Grade pay, Increments etc.
Point No. 2:- Rules regarding payment of Festival
Bonus during the said period, details of wages related
to the 7th Pay Commission etc. Please provide
complete per year details of payment of Festival Bonus
paid to the above mentioned worker at Point No. I, for
the period 2003 to 2014.
Point No.3:- What are the provisions I rules to pay the
total monthly salary including Basic pay, pay band
stagnation
increment,
dearness
pay,
dearness
allowance, city pay reimbursement allowance, house
rent allowance, hospital patient care allowance,
conveyance allowance and other allowances from 2003
to 2015 on regularization to the departmental worker
working
in
Engineering
Services
Department
(refrigeration and air conditioning sub-division) on the
post of mechanic (A. C. and Refrigerator) from 2003.
Please give com
