Central Information Commission
Girija Sankar Tummala vs Centre For Dna Fingerprinting And ... on 8 September, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/CDFAD/A/2021/652119
In the matter of
Girija Sankar Tummala
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD)
(Ministry of Science & Technology)
Inner Ring Road, Uppal, Hyderabad- 500 039
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 06/07/2021 CPIO replied on : 04/08/2021 First appeal filed on : 02/09/2021 First Appellate Authority order dated : 30/09/2021 Second Appeal Filed on : 02/11/2021 Date of Hearing : 07/09/2022 Date of Decision : 07/09/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Varsha, Scientist (V) and CPIO, present over VC alongwith G.Ravindran Information Sought:
The appellant in his second appeal has stated that he is not satisfied with the information furnished to him in respect of points 1 & 3 of the RTI Application, which are stated below:
1. Terminal benefits such as Gratuity, Leave Encashment, etc. were paid to the following officials who served in Centre of Excellence (COE) on completion of their project term in CDFD.
(i) Sh. B Jagannathacharyulu, Technical Officer IV, COE-I, CDFD
(ii) Mrs. K Nanci Rani, Technical Assistant, COE-II, CDFD
(iii) Mrs. Shruti Das Gupta, Technical Assistant, COE-II, CDFD 1
- Provide head wise payment details of each official separately. Also provide copies of Note sheet, payment vouchers, etc.
3. Dr. Abhijit A Sardesai, COE-I and Dr. Hari Narayanan, COE-II, who served in COEs were considered for absorption in CDFD.
- Provide copies of Note sheets, Board proceedings, their absorption or appointment orders in CDFD, etc. Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information in respect of point 1 & 3 of the RTI Application.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant vide written submissions dated NIL submitted that he was refused the terminal benefits whereas the above officials were granted the same. He submitted that similarly placed employees were not treated similarly in terms of benefits. He submitted a copy of the reply provided by the CPIO in respect of another RTI application to a different applicant and pressed for information on that basis.
The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was given on 04.08.2021. She also submitted that the details of third parties cannot be given unless there is any larger public interest in the case.
Observations:
The CPIO vide letter dated 04.08.2021 replied to the appellant and informed in respect of points no. 1 and 3 of the RTI application that u/s 11 notice was issued to the third parties and they refused to allow the disclosure of the information sought. The Commission noted that clearly personal information of third parties were sought which was denied from sharing by the third parties and and as no public interest was substantiated by the appellant in the second appeal, the CPIO refused to provide their information. Moreover, the copy of reply given to another applicant nowhere shows that the same information was sought or given by the CPIO. Further, it is noted that the information sought is clearly covered under Sec 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and these points are all administrative personal grievances of the appellant which is best resolved through the administrative route by filing a representation to the concerned authority of the organization.2
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no scope for providing any relief to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3