Central Information Commission
Ranu Kar vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 16 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/135145-BJ
Ms. Ranu Kar (Nag),
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Manager (CRM),
LIC of India, Burdwan Divisional Office,
Gopalnagar, Ghourdour Chati, PO: Sripally,
Distt. Burdwan - 713103
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.08.2018
Date of Decision : 16.08.2018
Date of RTI application Nil
CPIO's response 31.03.2017
Date of the First Appeal Nil
First Appellate Authority's response 25.04.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 25.05.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the salary (gross salary and net salary) drawn by Sri Narayan Kar, Staff of LICI Katwa branch for the month of January, 2017.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 31.03.2017 denied disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the CPIOs response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 25.04.2017, concurred with the CPIOs response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing: The following were present:
Appellant: Mrs. Ranu Kar (Nag) through VC;Page 1 of 3
Respondent: Mrs. Shipra Ghosh, CPIO / Manager (CRM) and Mr. Shouvik De, Manager (Legal) through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of her RTI application and stated that no satisfactory response was provided to her till date. Explaining that the information was sought by her in reference to a matrimonial dispute relating to claim of maintenance before the appropriate Court, the Appellant prayed for disclosure of gross and net salary of her husband Sri. Narayan Kar, Staff of LIC of India. In its reply, the Respondent referred to the reply of the CPIO/ FAA and stated that since the Third Party had denied his consent for disclosure of information, the same was denied u/s 8 (1)(j). On being queried if the name of the Appellant was indicated as the wife of the Third Party in his service records, the Respondent replied in the affirmative but submitted that they would need to confirm and re-verify the same in their records.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 07.08.2018, wherein it was stated that the CPIO had served a written notice to the third party in accordance with Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 inviting him to make a submission whether the information should be disclosed. The third party denied in writing vide email dated 29.03.2017. Thus, the CPIO denied disclosure of information as per Section 11 and 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. While stating that RTI was not a forum for grievance redressal, it was stated that the Appellant was informed to approach an appropriate forum. Thus, it was prayed to decide the Appeal in his favour.
The Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
However, making a distinction with the said judgment, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in the matter of Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018 had in a matter where the information seeker had sought the salary details of her husband from the employer held as under:
"While dealing with the Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant and the respondent No.1 are husband and wife and as a wife she is entitled to know what remuneration the respondent No.1 is getting.Page 2 of 3
Present case is distinguishable from the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) and therefore the law laid down by their Lordships in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) are not applicable in the present case.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.341/2008. Similarly, the W.A. No.170/2015 is also allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P. No.1647/2008 is set aside."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide the gross / total remuneration of her husband (Mr. Narayan Kar) to the Appellant after verifying their records regarding marital status of the Appellant viz-a-viz Mr. Narayan Kar, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, as agreed.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 16.08.2018
Page 3 of 3