Central Information Commission
Urmila Devi vs North Eastern Railway (Gorakhpur) on 17 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NERLG/A/2024/120368
Urmila Devi .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
C.P.I.O,
North Eastern Railway
O/o the Divisional Railway Manager (Store),
Izzatnagar, Bareilly,
Uttar Pradesh - 243 122 .... ितवादी/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16-02-2026
Date of Decision : 16-02-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27-02-2024
CPIO replied on : 16-03-2024
First appeal filed on : 06-04-2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18-06-2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27-02-2024 seeking the following information:
"सीिनयर से न इं जीिनयर रे लपथ पीलीभोत/भोजीपु रा,बरे ली के अधीन मे ठ के पद पर कायरत ताप िसंह पु ी बालजीत िसंह िनवासी ाम बुिजया जनूवी भोजीपुरा (बरे ली) उ र दे श के िन ां िकत वष की उप ित पंिजका की मािणत छाया ितयां दे ने की कृपा कर।
1. यह िक वष 2018 से 2024 तक यािन (01.01.2018 से 25.01.2024 तक) की ेक माह की उग ित पंितका की मािणत छाया ितयां दे ने की कृपा कर।"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16-03-2024 stating as under:
CIC/NERLG/A/2024/120368 Page 1 of 4"आपके उ िवषयािकत आवेदन के संब मे इ जी0 से ा सूचना संब ी प प सं0इ/िविवध/आर.टी.आई/इ-4 िदनां क-15.03.2024 के प ों की ितयों इस प के साथ संल कर ेिषत की जा रही ह।"
3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06-04-2024. The F.A.A order is not on record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, CPIO present through Video- Conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 18.06.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide reply has been provided to the Appellant. The Respondent stated that the information sought by the Appellant is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act. Further, third-party had also denied disclosure of his information to the Appellant.
Decision:
8. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant sought copies of attendance records in the RTI application. And she has failed to establish any larger public interest, warranting the disclosure of information.
9. The Commission observes that information regarding the attendance details of any employee is personal information of third party which CIC/NERLG/A/2024/120368 Page 2 of 4 cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Dr. R S Gupta vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. in LPA 207/2020 dated 31.08.2020, held as under:
"10. ... The attendance record is part of service record which is a matter between the employee and the employer and ordinarily these aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information". The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less 'larger public interest'."
10. In view of the above legal positions and observations, the Commission finds that the information sought by the Appellant is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.
11. The Commission observes that the Respondent in their response has not invoked specific exemption clause while denying the information. The Respondent is directed to be cautious in future and ensure that meticulous replies should be given to the RTI applicants.
12. No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011 - 2610 7040 CIC/NERLG/A/2024/120368 Page 3 of 4 Copy To:
The First Appellate Authority, North Eastern Railway, O/o the Divisional Railway Manager (Store), Izzatnagar, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh - 243 122 Urmila Devi CIC/NERLG/A/2024/120368 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)