Central Information Commission
Swapnil Deepak Pawar vs Indian Institute Of Packaging on 23 January, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IIOFP/A/2024/638512
Swapnil Deepak Pawar
.....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO : Indian Institute of Packaging, ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Plot E - 2, Road No. 8, MIDC Area,
Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093.
Date of Hearing : 22-01-2026
Date of Decision : 22-01-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Khushwant Singh Sethi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20-03-2024
CPIO replied on : 26-07-2024
First appeal filed on : 23-04-2024
First Appellate Authority's order :
2nd Appeal dated : 29-08-2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20-03-2024 seeking the following information:CIC/IIOFP/A/2024/638512 Page 1 of 5
"1. provide the list with name, designation and period of deputation of permanent Employees of Indian Institute of Packaging (IIP) went on deputation to other organization since January 2021.
2. Out of above list of deputationist, how many of them who have requested IIP for permanent absorption. Give details.
3. Out of those deputationist (Employee) who have requested for permanent absorption, if IIP have given the No Objection Certificate (NOC) for said absorption, give details and provide a certified copy of the letter (NOC) given by IIP.
4. If IIP have not given any NOC for said absorption, state the current status of their repatriation to IIP after completion of their deputation period. Failure, denial or refusing to furnish the above information, liable for the penalties U/s. 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26-07-2024 stating as under:
"1. Provide the list with name, designation and period of deputation of permanent Employees of Indian Institute of Packaging (IIP) went on deputation to other organization since January 2021 Reply: The officials went on depuration w.e.f. January 2021 for the period as per norms issued by DOPT. Prima facie it is observed that the other information sought is personal in nature and apparently not in larger public Interest. Therefore, found exempted from disclosure of information as per the provision of RTI Act 2005 (Section 8(1)g)
2. Out of above list of deputationist, how many of them who have requested IIP for permanent absorption. Give details. Reply: 1 official
3. Out of those deputationist (Employee) who have requested for permanent absorption, if IIP have given the No Objection Certificate (NOC) for said absorption, give details and provide a certified copy of the letter (NOC) given by IIP.
Reply: NOC issued
4. If IIP have not given any NOC for said absorption, state the current status of their repatriation to IIP after completion of their deputation period Reply: - NA"
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23-04-2024. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/IIOFP/A/2024/638512 Page 2 of 5Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Attended the hearing through video conference. Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Section Officer & CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
4. The Appellant stated that he sought for list with name, designation and period of deputation of permanent employees of the respondent department and the same was not provided to him. Also, the appellant submitted that the CPIO gave reply after a period of almost 03 months and that too after sending reminders.
5. The Respondent submitted that they have provided point-wise reply to the appellant.
6. The Commission queried the respondent on delay in replying to the appellant. To this, the respondent submitted that the then CPIO got transferred and another officer gave reply to the appellant. To this, the Commission directed the respondent to upload the authorization letter in favor of the said officer who replied to the appellant in the capacity of CPIO/ACPIO. To this, the respondent agreed during the hearing. The Commission queried the respondent if they can give numerical figures, year wise, to the appellant for point no.1. To this, the respondent agreed.
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant for point no. 2, 3 and 4.
CIC/IIOFP/A/2024/638512 Page 3 of 5Also, during the hearing, the respondent agreed to provide numerical figures for point no.1. Hence, the respondent is directed to give a revised reply to the appellant for point no.1 (only numerical figures). The respondent shall provide the aforesaid revised reply to the appellant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission - both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Khushwant Singh Sethi) (खुशवन्त स िंह ेठी) Information Commissioner ( ूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 22.01.2026 Authenticated true copy S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26107026 Copy To:
1. The CPIO Indian Institute of Packaging, Plot E - 2, Road No. 8, MIDC Area, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093.
2. The FAA, Indian Institute of Packaging, Plot E - 2, Road No. 8, MIDC Area, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093.CIC/IIOFP/A/2024/638512 Page 4 of 5
3. Swapnil Deepak Pawar CIC/IIOFP/A/2024/638512 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)