Central Information Commission
Sandhya Nitin Pradhan vs National Council Of Science Museums.( ... on 18 January, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NCSBI/A/2022/138502
Smt. Sandhya Nitin Pradhan ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Nehru Science Museum, National Council of ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Science Museums, Mumbai
Date of Hearing : 18.01.2024
Date of Decision : 18.01.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri HeeralalSamariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.03.2022
PIO replied on : 27.04.2022
First Appeal filed on : 17.05.2022
First Appellate Order on : 13.06.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 18.08.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.03.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"Document true copies and information of Mr. Nitin Shankar Pradhan, who was employed at Nehru Science Centre which is a Central Government Organization and comes under RTI Act, 2005 Employee Details-Employee Code: S-26, Designation: Technician 'E" (as on 2017) Subject of Information Required:
1. Month wise Pension details disbursed since retirement till date
2. Pension Account Number
3. Details of Pension Disbursing Office
4. Copies of all documents submitted for obtaining pension
5. Copies of photographs submitted along with documents and applications submitted for obtaining pension
6. Last drawn salary with salary slip
7. All documents from Service Record and File
8. Salary Slip of last 5 years before retirement
9. Details and address of appellate authority for redressal of my right to get information of my husband Mr.Nitin Shankar Pradhan"Page 1 of 3
The CPIO and Dy Controller of Administration, NSC, Mumbai vide letter dated 27.04.2022 replied as under:-
"With reference to your application dated 25.03.2022 seeking information under RTI Act, 2005, a copy of which was received by this office on 29.03.2022, the information sought by you in respect of Shri Nitin Shankar Pradhan, an ex- employee of Nehru Science Centre, Mumbai, is available with this office under fiduciary relation. Since this information relates to third party, the undersigned in terms of Clause 11 (1) of RTI Act, 2005, vide letter of even number dated 01.04.2022 requested Shri Nitin Shankar Pradhan to make his submission within 10 days whether the information sought under RTI Act by, the applicant can be provided to her. Unfortunately, Shri Pradhan vide his letter dated 07.04.2022, submitted that his personal information as sought for should not be provided to anyone.
In view of the above, the undersigned is of the opinion that the information asked by you pertains to the third party and that no larger public interest will be made in disclosure of such information. The information, is therefore, denied in terms of the provision under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.05.2022. The FAA and Curator 'G', NSC, Mumbai vide order dated 13.06.2022 stated as under:-
"1. Taking into consideration the above-mentioned observations and available records, the undersigned observes that the information sought by the Appellant is personal information of third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and the undersigned is of the opinion that no larger public interest justifies the disclosure of requested information, in terms of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005
2. However, considering the marital discord between the husband and wife vis-à-vis her right of maintenance, the undersigned directs that the CPIO, NSC Mumbai to inform the Appellant generic information and the numerical figures of the monthly pension and last salary drawn of Mr.Nitin Shankar Pradhan, held and available with the CPIO within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order.
3. The appeal of the appellant is accordingly disposed off."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the CPIO and Dy Controller of Administration, NSC, Mumbai vide letter dated 16.01.2024 wherein it was stated that in compliance with the FAA's order, information relating to monthly pension and last drawn pay of Mr Nitin Pradhan was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 14.06.2022.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Arun Bharadwaj, CPIO and Dy Controller of Adminsitration Page 2 of 3 The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.
Shri Arun Bharadwaj stated that in compliance with the FAA's order information relating to monthly pension and last drawn pay of Mr Nitin Pradhan was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 14.06.2022. The remaining information was denied u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 after seeking the consent of the third party who had denied his consent vide letter dated 07.04.2022. He added that a copy of the written submission sent to the Commission was also forwarded to the Appellant through email.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3