Central Information Commission
Umeshkumar Ramkumar Rajput vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 20 August, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/634675.
Shri. Umeshkumar Ramkumar Rajput. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Employees Provident Fund Organisation.
Date of Hearing : 18.08.2025
Date of Decision : 18.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.06.2024
PIO replied on : 09.07.2024
First Appeal filed on : 15.07.2024
First Appellate Order on : 26.07.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 13.08.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.06.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"I hereby Umeshkumar filling RTI to fetch the Employment status and generic income details of my wife (Swati Dilipsing Chavan) as presently our DV case is going on in which maintenance case is pending before Honorable court in Jamner, Maharashtra. Applicant is the husband of Swati Dilipsing Chavan. Spouse also has the right to know the Income details of other Spouse in the light of CIC decision No.CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/630782 dated 05.10.2018. As per this cited decisions, giving generic details of gross income of spouse is not personal information and hence not exempted. Marriage registration No. 098-475(Marriage certificate is attached - Page 3 of attachment) Place of Marriage: Nashik DV case details: (Please see Page 1 and 2 of attachment for further details) CNR Number: MHIG160008362023 Case Number: 56/2023 Spouse details:
Name: Swati Dilipsing Chavan PAN: BHLPC8116N Aadhar: 7772 3380 6059 Furthermore, please note that there are matrimonial disputes between the spouses with a decision regarding maintenance pending before the Honorable Court, Jamner, Maharashtra.
Page 1 Employment status and Generic income details are required for the period 2020 to 2024, 1.1st April 2020 to 31st March 2021 2.1st April 2021 to 31st March 2022 3.1st April 2022 to 31st March 2023 4.1st April 2023 to 31st March 2024 5.1st April 2024 to till date"
The CPIO, vide letter dated 09.07.2024 replied as under:-
"Reply INFORMATION FURNISHED It is informed that Third Party information could not be provided under section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, Since the required details pertains to Mrs. Swati Dilipsing Chavan.
The appellant has sought the PF statement of spouse Mrs. Swati Dilipsing Chavan. Sections (1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 is that it exempts the information which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individual unless the PIO or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.07.2024. The FAA, vide order dated 26.07.2024 replied as under:-
"In response to the appeal filed by the appellant in the absence of substantial evidence establishing the relationship of Wife & Husband and the ongoing purported matrimonial dispute, the following decisions/judgments are relied upon:
1. As per Supreme Court of India judgment in case of R.K.Jain vs Union of India & Anron 16 April, 2013 vide SLF (C) No.22609 of 2012 dated 16.04.2013, the Honorable court is of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought is for the larger public interest. Hence the same was dismissed. Since the petitioner in the instant case has not made a bon fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1X) of the RTI Act.
2. The CIC decision dated 03.09.2020 in Ajit Singh Vs APFC, RO. Gurgaon (CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/604070) wherein the Commission observed that right to privacy is a primal, natural right which is inherent to an individual and as clearly defined u/s 2(n) "third party" means & a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a Public Authority. The wife is therefore clearly a third party and the information related her PF is her personal information. Moreover, though similar information was given by other public authorities of the same organization, relief cannot be granted on parity as the Commission is not in agreement with the stand taken by the FAAs in those cases on the basis of the reliance placed on the decision as quoted above. The CP10's submissions therefore stating that the information sought is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is upheld by the Commission and no further action is warranted in this matter.
3. Han ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL 16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Drs. Dayed on 17.09.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under
16. A perusal of all these FIRs and complaints therein would show that allegations have been made by the Respondent No. 4 against both her ex-
husbands as also the in-laws etc. Thus, the privacy which is to be considered in this case is not just the privacy of Respondent No. 4 alone but in fact, that of Page 2 the said husbands against whom complaints were filed as well as the in-laws etr. The personal information in this case does not relate only to the Petitioner or Respondent No.4 but also to those other persons who were the subject matter of the said complaints and FIR. Thus, the exception under Section 8/1)(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 would clearly apply in the present case.
4. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in Registrar, Supreme Court v. R.S. Misra (2017 SCC Online Del 11811] that the provisions of the RTI Act are for achieving transparency and not for making available information to be usest in other proceedings, especially if there are other remedies available to the persons who seek the information, under another statute. The relevant extract reads as under:"
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Further, the Respondent, provided a written submission dated 14.08.2025, stating, "Reply Submission on Behalf of Respondent
1. Initial Correspondence:
• The Appellant vide RTI applications No. EPFOG/R/E/24/8517 & EPFOG/R/E/24/8515 dated 17.06.2024 (received on 05.07.2024) sought information relating to the PF account statement, employment status, and generic income details of his spouse, Smt. Swati Dilipsing Chavan, for the period April 2020 to July 2024.
• The CPIO, Regional Office, Chennai (South), vide reply dated 09.07.2024, denied the information under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)() of the RTI Act, 2005, holding that the requested details constitute personal information of a third party, disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy and no larger public interest was demonstrated."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shayamal Kumar Auddy, CPIO/ Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is also participating in the hearing. The Respondent submits that information sought is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. He further submits that since, the Appellants Wife is not their employee, the Generic income details sought for the period 2020 to 2024, (1st April 2020 to 31st March 2021, 1st April 2021 to 31st March 2022, 1st April 2022 to 31st March 2023, 1st April 2023 to 31st March 2024, 1st April 2024 to till date"), Cannot be provided.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the case records and the submission made during hearing it is observed that the information sought by the appellant is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, further no larger public interest has been invoked by him .
Furthermore, it is directed to the Respondent to send a copy of the written submission dated 14.08.2025 to the Appellant via speed post/registered post and/or Email, free of cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order Page 3 and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission within a week thereafter.
In view of the aforementioned, wherein it is noted that the Respondent has sent appropriate response to the Appellant, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, no further adjudication is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The matter stands disposed of.
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 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)