Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ravi Kant Sinha vs Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 13 August, 2024

                                   के ीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                              बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                            नई िद    ी, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं     ा / Complaint No. CIC/JNUND/C/2023/633657

Ravi Kant Sinha                                              ...िशकायतकता/Complainant

                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम

CPIO:
1. Jawahar Lal Nehru University,
New Delhi

2. Dayal Singh Evening College,
New Delhi                                                     ... ितवादीगण/Respondent(s)

Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:

 RTI : 06.06.2023           FA      : Not on record          Complaint : 11.07.2023

 CPIO : 05.07.2023          FAO : Not on record              Hearing   : 25.07.2024


Date of Decision: 13.08.2024

                                   CORAM:
                             Hon'ble Commissioner
                          SMT. ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                  ORDER

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) "Provide duly authenticated copy of LPC (Last Pay Certificate) which was issued by the Dayal Singh Evening College (University of Delhi) on relieving of Sri Gagandeep Singh for further joining in JNU on 14.08.2018 on deputation basis.

(ii) Provide duly authenticated copy of order of pay fixation of Sri Gagandeep Singh at his initial joining in JNU on 14.08.2018 as Deputy Registrar on deputation basis.

(iii) Provide duly authenticated copy of LPC (Last Pay Certificate) which was issued by the Dayal Singh Evening College (University of Delhi) on absorption of Sri Gagandeep Singh in JNU on 14.09.2022.

(iv) Provide duly authenticated copy of order of pay fixation of Sri Gagandeep Singh on his absorption in JNU on 14.09.2022 as Deputy Registrar.

(v) Provide duly authenticated copy of order/notification pertaining to Shri Gagandeep Singh's proforma promotion in the Pay Matrix-11 in the Dayal Singh Evening College (University of Delhi), if promoted by the University of Delhi in between the dates from 14.08.2018 to 14.09.2022."...etc.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"Point No. 1, 3, 5 & 6: Information pertains to Dayal Singh Evening College.

Point No. 2: Copy enclosed.

Point No. 4: Not available in records."

3. Aggrieved with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 11.07.2023 stating inter alia as under in respect of the reply provided by the CPIO against the following paras:

"In respect of para 1- While providing the information regarding pay fixation in respect of Shri Gagandeep Singh as requested, only pay fixation order dated 03.12.2018 has been provided while denying the last pay certificate (LPC) of the said officer issued from Dayal Singh Evening College, New Delhi. It is known fact that pay fixation on deputation can be fixed in the borrowing department only on the basis of last pay certificate (LPC) issued by the lending department. It is submitted that Shri Gagandeep Singh was appointed on deputation in JNU on 14.08.2018.

In respect of para 3- It is known fact that pay has to be re-fixed in the borrowing department only on the basis of last pay certificate (LPC) issued by the lending department. It is submitted that Shri Gagandeep Singh was absorbed in JNU on 14.09.2022 in continuation of his appointment on deputation.

In respect of para 4- It is known fact that re-fixation of pay is required to be done on absorption. Though, he has been absorbed in JNU on 14.09.2022 in continuation of his appointment on deputation.

In respect of para 5- Such information must be in the office in case Shri Gagandeep Singh was given proforma promotion in the Pay Matrix-11 in the Dayal Singh Evening College (University of Delhi).

xxx Moreover, for the information which may be available with Dayal Singh Evening College (as mentioned in the reply i.e. para 1, 3, 5, and 6), the CPIO has failed to transfer the application to the concerned public authority/CPIO, as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

Further, the information has deliberately and intentionally been concealed and incomplete/misleading information has been provided due to conflict of interest, as the information has been sought in respect of Shri Gagandeep Singh who at present custodian of records pertaining to all non-teaching staff of the University in his capacity as Deputy Registrar (Administration) and also happens to be CPIO in this case.

Therefore, request your kind self to look into the matter and pass necessary order against the CPIO for not adhering to the provisions of the RTI Act."

4. The Complainant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, Promila Dharam, PIO and Dr. Janendra Narayan Singh. Then CPIO, Dayal Singh College; M K Manuj, DR & CPIO; B.S Meena, DR & PIO along with Sunil Yadav, PS to CPIO and Sunil Devaia, SO (Admn-I), JNU attended the hearing in person.

5. The Complainant argued on the same lines as that of the grounds of the Complaint mentioned above and challenged the pay fixation etc. of the individual referred to in the RTI Application. He further agitated against the non-transfer of his RTI Application by JNU to Dayal Singh College.

6. The Respondent from JNU reiterated the reply provided to the Complainant while the Respondent from Dayal Singh College submitted that the RTI Application was not transferred to them.

7. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes at the outset that the grounds of complaint do not seek for any action amenable to the mandate of Section 18 of the RTI Act. Moreover, the Complainant during the hearing harped on his anguish against the service matter of a third party, which is not an issue for determination of correctness within the scope of adjudication of the Commission under the RTI Act. It is also pertinent to note that the information sought for in the RTI Application stands squarely exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it concerns the service matter of a third party. Yet, the CPIO, JNU has facilitated the Complainant with some information, similarly, the action/inaction of the CPIO, JNU in not having transferred the RTI Application to the concerned record holder does not warrant any scrutiny. In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC

794. The following was thus held:

"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, Page 4 of 5 marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."

8. The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 13.08.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनल एस एस िछकारा, ("रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26180514 (०११-२६१८०५१८) Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Jawahar Lal Nehru University, Deputy Registrar & CPIO, (Administration Branch), J.N.U., New Delhi-110067

2. The CPIO Dayal Singh Evening College, CPIO, University 0f Delhi, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

3. Ravi Kant Sinha Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)