IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : March 11, 2025 Raj Kumar .. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Anshul Baghla, Advocate, for Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Mithun, Advocate, for Mr. Abhishek Jindal, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 & 3.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present writ petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner is that the information which is being sought by the petitioner vide application dated 07.03.2018 (Annexure P-2), is not being provided to him, which is causing prejudice to him. Hence, it is the prayer of the

the Information Commission vide which complete information sought by

petitioner has been denied, be set aside.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the personal

information about the employee is being sought vide application dated

07.03.2018 (Annexure P-2), which is not permissible as per Section 8 (1) (j)

of the Right to Information Act, 2005 hence, the same cannot be granted.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties