Central Information Commission
Vinayak Durgappa Naik vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 3 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/ESICO/A/2022/110733
Vinayak Durgappa Naik ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Employees State Insurance
Corporation, Branch Office,
Malleswaram, RTI Cell,
Opposite to Mysore Lamp Works
Ltd., Malleswaram,
Bangalore-560055, Karnataka. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/04/2023
Date of Decision : 27/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 30/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 07/01/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 24/01/2022
Second Appeal dated : 02/03/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.12.2021 seeking the following information:1
"For details on ESI details of outsourcing staff working as a Data Entry Operator under NRLM Project in Uttara Kannada District, in the HRM of Sri Mahabaleshwar Enterprises from 2017-18.
S. Name of Name ESI From the date of Details of If paid
No outsource of the number joining the service maternity maternity
staffs working of by the Sri leave leave, the paid
taluk outsource Mahabaleshwar during amount and
staffs Enterprises HR service date of the
agency to the period maternity leave
payment made by facility from ESI
the ESI
1
2
3
4
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 30.12.2021 stating as under:
"I am to refer to your RTI Request No. NIL dated 13.12.2021 received at this Office on 15.12.2021 and to inform you that there are around 5500 plus insured persons registered under M/s. Mahabaleshwara Enterprises. No separate detail of the Insured Persons deployed against the NRLM Project is available at this Office, as the employer has registered all the persons under single employer code with Bangalore address. Hence, this office is not able to furnish you the required information.
However, it is to inform that, if the insurance numbers of the Insured Women under the NRLM Project is furnished, we can proceed further in the matter."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.01.2022. FAA's order dated 24.01.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Shilpa S, Branch Manager & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the fact that desired information has not been provided to him till date. He urged for relief to be awarded in the matter as it pertains to his wife.
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards her written submission dated 21.04.2023 stating as under -
"...The applicant/complainant had requested information in the specified format regarding the employees employed by M/s Mahabaleshwara Enterprises, Bangalore, who are working on the NRLM Project in the Uttara Kannada District.
As per the existing procedure, each employee's payments will be kept on a separate ledger sheet Insurance Number wise in both online and offline. These are not maintained employer wise.
In the instance case, M/s. Mahabaleshawara Enterprises, which is actually known as SRI MAHABALESHWARA HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES PVT.LTD. in the ESIC records, has registered 5661 insured persons under their employer code 49000342390001001 as per EMR / Return of Contribution available in online. However, the principal employers to whom these workers are deputed are not available with this office either in offline or in online.
Hence the applicant was advised to furnish the Insurance numbers of those in respect of whom the information was sought. Besides, if the insurance numbers are provided by the applicant, the consent of all the said insured persons should be obtained as this being the third party information..."
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the complete ESI details of outsourced Data Entry Operator staff working under NRLM Project in Uttara Kannada District, in the HRM of Sri Mahabaleshwar Enterprises from 2017-18 (in tabular format), as sought by the Appellant contains the elements of personal 3 information of said staff which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."4
Nonetheless, the reply provided by the CPIO indicating the factual position (as mentioned above) is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
However, in pursuance to clause 4 of the hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of her latest written submission free of cost with the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5