Central Information Commission
Kulvant Singh vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal ... on 27 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/HNBGU/A/2025/644713
Kulvant Singh .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
HEMVATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY,
RTI CELL, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING,
SRINAGAR, DISTT-GARHWAL,
UTTARAKHAND-246174 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.03.2026
Date of Decision : 16.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.08.2025
CPIO replied on : 04.09.2025
First appeal filed on : 07.09.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 19.09.2025
2nd Appeal dated : NA
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.08.2025 seeking the following information:
"1. Kindly provide certified copy of Employees Welfare Fund, ESIC, EPF and labour department records of Uttaranchal College of Science and Technology (UCST) Dehradun and its staff during 2015-2025.Page 1 of 5
2. If UCST is following some other alternatives rather than EWF, ESIC, EPF and labour department, kindly provide copies of documents of those alternatives during 2015-2025.
3. Kindly provide EWF, ESIC, EPF and labour registration number/ account number and Employer Code of UCST Dehradun and all employees of UCST Dehradun from 2015-2025.
4. Kindly provide EWF, ESIC and EPF contribution records for the financial years 2014-15 to 2024-25 of UCST Dehradun and all employees of UCST Dehradun.
5. Kindly provide certified copy of monthly salary slips submitted by all the employees of UCST Dehradun from 2015 to till date in EWF, ESIC, EPF and labour department or their alternatives.
6. Kindly provide details of any medical claims made by employees of UCST Dehradun under ESIC, along with dependent details during 2015- 2025."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 04.09.2025 stating as under:
"आपके ारा ेिषत Online RTI Registration No. HNBGU/R/E/25/00270 दनॉक 11/08/2025 के ारा मांगी गयी िब दुवार सूचना के स ब ध मे अवगत करवाना है क उ सूचना तृतीय प से स बि धत होने के कारण सूचना अिधकार अिधिनयम 2005 क धारा 8 (J) के अ तगत नही दी जा सकती है।"
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.09.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 19.09.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Kulvant Singh, present through audio conference. Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, AR/PIO present through video conference.Page 2 of 5
5. Written statement filed by the Appellant and CPIO are taken on record.
6. Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction to the fact that the CPIO has denied the request for information under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 without giving any proper justification in this regard. It was the further plea of the Complainant that had it been the case be, the CPIO should have invoked Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 to seek the consent of third-party for providing the third-party information, which was not done in this matter. Appellant alleged inaction/omission of the UCST College in not providing benefits of ESIC, EPF, etc. to the faculty. Hence, this Second Appeal before the Commission seeking intervention in the matter.
7. CPIO stated that the information sought by the Complainant alleging irregularities in Uttaranchal College of Science & Technology (UCST) College, which is self-financing college affiliated by their University. In this regard, the Complainant sought registration record and other related personal information of the third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the initial reply has been provided to the Complainant, accordingly. Even otherwise, the concerned custodian of the records is Uttaranchal College of Science & Technology (UCST) College. On receipt of hearing notice from the CIC, the Registrar of University sought comments on the RTI application from the UCST College which furnished a revised reply and the copy of the same has been provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 05.03.2026, informing as under -
"अतः उपरो ानुसार सूचना िन वत पुनः ेिषत क जा रही है:
िब दु सं० 1,,3,4,5,6 उ सूचना तृतीय प से होने के कारण सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम-2005 क धारा 8 (j) के अ तगत दान नही क जा सकती है। िब दु सं० 2. सूचना संल (संल क - 02)।"
Decision:
8. Heard the parties.
9. The Commission, on perusal of facts of this Appeal and submission of the parties observed that information sought by the Appellant regarding Employees' Welfare Fund, Employees PF and ESIC related records contains the elements of personal information of third-parties, request of such information has been rightly denied by the CPIO under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Girish Ramchandra Page 3 of 5 Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012) decided on 03.10.2012 it was held that :-
"...We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as matter of right.
xxx
15. The petitioner in the instant case has not made bonafide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
16. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed."
10. The Commission also cannot lose sight of the fact that Section 44 (3) of Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023 was brought into force w.e.f. 14.11.2025 which establishes that Public Authority, no longer requires to justify withholding personal data by weighing Public interest against privacy.
11. Further, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding inaction/omission of the USCT College, Dehradun is a matter of grievance which cannot be resolved under the mandate of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 4 of 512. In the light of the above discussion, no scope of intervention by the Commission is warranted in the matter and submissions of the CPIO are upheld.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लग ं ी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Kulvant Singh Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)