Central Information Commission
Deepika Haloi vs Comptroller & Auditor General on 4 December, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CAGIN/A/2024/139135
Deepika Haloi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: The Accountant
General (Audit), Guwahati,
Assam ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.06.2024 FA : 02.08.2024 SA : 02.12.2024
CPIO : 04.07.2024 FAO : 28.08.2024 Hearing : 27.11.2025
Date of Decision: 03.12.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "Total number of officials who had undergone treatment outside the state of Assam during the period from January 2010 to December 2023.
2. Total number of officials who had obtained prior-permission of Director/Additional Director/Joint Director of CGHS, Guwahati for such treatment outside the state of Assam during the period from January 2010 to December 2023.Page 1 of 9
3. In case any of the officials who had taken treatment outside the state of Assam during the period from January 2010 to December 2023, had not obtained prior permission of Director/Additional Director/Joint Director of CGHS.
Guwahati, please specifically mention the rules/provisions under which the competent authority had approved the claim(s) for the concerned treatment of the official(s).
4. Details of all the officials who had undergone treatment outside the state of Assam during the period from January 2010 to December 2023 as per the Table below:
Sl. Name Designation Period of Name of Amount claimed Amount Whether prior No. of the treatment the by the official sanctioned by permission of official Hospital the competent where authority Director/ treatment Addl.
was
Director/Joint
obtained
Director of
CGHS.
Guwahati was
obtained
Medical TA Medical TA
claim claim claim claim
5. Copy of the Prior-permission of Director/Additional Director/Joint Director of CGHS, Guwahati obtained by the officials for the concerned treatments."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:Page 2 of 9
1. "No such information is available.
2. No such information is available.
3. As per MH &FW No. S-11011/6/96-CGHS (P) dated !1.07.1997 and further orders issued by Health Department.
4. No such information is available.
5. No such information is available."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.08.2024. The FAA vide order dated 28.08.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO stating as under:
"(i) As per RTI Act, 2005 Government of India's. Decision (3) under See 6 of the RTI Act. "It is beyond the scope of the Act for a public authority to create information.
Collection of information, parts of which are available with different public authorities, would amount to creation of information which a public authority under the Act is not required to do".
(ii) As per Supreme Court of India in the SLP (C) No. 27734 of 2012 (Girish R Deshpande vs CIC and others) in which it has held that "the performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a 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 could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual".
(iii) As per See 8 (1)(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 is exempted from disclosure. Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In Page 3 of 9 relation to the information sought by the applicant, it may be stated that such information is not readily available as this office has not created data base for medical treatment of its employees.
4. WHEREAS the applicant has sought information relating to permission granted to the officials of this office for obtaining medical treatment from outside the State of Assam during the period from January 2010 to December 2023. However, data base of such information is not in place. Further, in light of Para 3(ii) and Para(iii) ibid, personal information of third party cannot be shared under RTI Act, 2005."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.12.2024.
5. The Appellant was represented by Amarjyoti Sharma through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Vinod Vijay, DAG & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Rep. of the Appellant sought to argue on the lines of the written statement of the Appellant filed on 20.11.2025 stating as under:
"(i) The reply of the CPIO states that "no such information is available" whereas the reply of the Appellate Authority states in his reply (Sl. No.-i) - "It is beyond the scope of the Act for a public authority to create information. Collection of information, parts of which are available with different public authorities, would amount to creation of information which a public authority under the Act is not required to do"
That, I beg to state that, both the reply in this case contradicts as the CPIO had stated that there is "no such information is available" whereas the Appellate Authority stated, "Collection of information, parts of which are available with different public authorities, would amount to creation of information which a public authority under the Act is not required to do".
In this connection, I would like to bring to your kind notice that all the Personal Medical Files and other related medical files are readily available in a single section Page 4 of 9 (known as Claims/Entitlement Section) of O/o the A.G.(Audit) Assam. As such, the reply of the Appellate Authority stating that information is to be collected from different authorities is totally incorrect. Moreover, all communications with the Director/Additional Director/Joint Director of CGHS, Guwahati regarding permission sought for treatment outside the State of Assam is readily available in the Outward Registers of the Section to locate the File details.
Further, this is to bring to your kind notice that during a Departmental Enquiry initiated against me, I had requisitioned medical files in respect of three other officials of the office and it was found that in case of the three officials, the Competent Authority had permitted treatment outside the State of Assam (with one escort) without obtaining the prior approval of the Additional Director CGHS, GMSD Complex, A.K. Azad Road, Gopinath Nagar, Guwahati-781016 [copy of the ANNEXURE (which is a part of the Enquiry Report) is enclosed- ANNEXURE-XIV].
While commenting against the case law relied upon by the FAA in their order, the Appellant has argued as under:
"That, in my case, I just requested to provide information where similar situated officials got the benefit, which was denied to me, as already stated above. I would also like to state that I have not sought any prescription/bills/treatment details of any individual officials. I just want the information where it clearly shows that the number of officials who had been allowed to go for treatment outside the State of Assam by the competent authority sought prior permission from the Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) and all relevant documents are available in the Claims Section of the O/o the Accountant General (Audit).
(iii) In reply to my RTI application, it was informed that the information sought by the applicant is not readily available as this office and has not created database for medical treatment of its employees.
It is to be stated that all the information are readily available in the personal medical files of all the officials as I have already pointed out three medical claims Page 5 of 9 reimbursed by the competent authority without having the prior permission of the Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) The information sought by me falls under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act name, designation, hospital, treatment period, amount claimed/sanctioned, and prior permission status - relates to official duties and public expenditure, not private or sensitive personal data.
Moreover, the expenses incurred under CGHS Scheme are funded by public money/taxpayers' money and therefore the information sought by me needs to be disclosed under the RTI Act."
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and emphasized on the following contents of their written submissions:
"The Referral Board of Guwahati Medical College and Hospital had referred (dated 17.05.2019) her case to Medanta Hospital, Delhi which was not in line with the instruction issued in MH&FW OM No. Z15025/105/2017/DIR/C GHS/EHS dated 09-11- 2017, therefore, her application was not forwarded to Additional Director, CGHS, Guwahati.
This Office has taken up the matter (dated 24.05.2019) with the GMCH authority regarding Referral Board Recommendation and in reply GMCH vide letter MCH/15/75/Pt.-18/217 date 28.05.2019 stated that her case was not an emergency in nature. However. she was permitted to leave Headquarter station for medical treatment vide this office letter No. Admn./Au/PC/DH/2019-20/829 dated 30-05-2019."
xxx "The information sought in the present appeal (regarding permission granted to three officials) is a clear deviation from the queries raised in the applicant's original RTI Application. Any request for information that deviates from original requirements cannot be addressed at Appeal Stage."
Page 6 of 98. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has sought for a data spanning across 13 years, which data is said to be not available and is not maintained in such manner. Moreover, the primary contention of the Appellant is that this data can be accessed from the personal files of the employees. The FAA has adequately dealt with the contentions of the Appellant and no scope remains to alter or add to the observations of the FAA including the aspect of such collation and collection of data hinging on the privacy of third parties. In the considered opinion of this bench, under the garb of channelizing a personal grievance, the Appellant expects to be facilitated with such indeterminate data by simply going through the personal files of the employees relating to a time period of over 10 years. In the facts of the instant case, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
'37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to Page 7 of 9 obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility, and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.'
9. Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention or relief to be ordered in the matter.
10. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) आनं दी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 03.12.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Office of the Accountant General (Audit) : Assam, Maidamgaon, Beltola, Guwahati, Assam - 781029 Page 8 of 9 2 Deepika Haloi Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)