Central Information Commission
Bhagaban Gantayat vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 4 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/LICOI/A/2023/137728
Bhagaban Gantayat .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
LIC of India, Berhampur Divisional Office,
Jeevan Prakash, Khodasingi, Berhampur,
Ganjam, Odisha - 760010 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.12.2024
Date of Decision : 03.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.05.2023
CPIO replied on : 12.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 23.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 19.07.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12.09.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 15.05.2023 seeking the following information:
"One Sri. Simanchal Sahoo S/o Sri. Bhagaban Sahoo, Gajapatinagar, 8th Lane, Berhampur having engaged as LIC Agent No-03491 is still Page 1 of 10 continuing to perform his service in several parts and stationed at Berhampur.
1. The detail service particulars of Sri. Simanchal Sahoo Agent/incumbent of LIC India, Berhampur from 1990 to April 2023.
2. The rate of salary, wages, Honorarium commission being paid to Sri. Simanchal Sahoo.
3. The present designation/post of Sri. Sahoo.
4. One of the paper cutting of 1.12.2001 is enclosed as one of the proof.
5. The Total agent ship charges/Wages/ Honorariums/Salaries paid to Sri. Sahoo from 1990 to April 2023 and details of commission paid.
6. If no information is supplied by you within the stipulated period of 30 days, please inform who is the 1 appellate Authority.
7. What is His present position of post held/salary and other benefits attached to the post."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.06.2023 stating as under:
1. The information which has been sought in your Request Application is Third party information.
In order to part with such third-party information, as per Sec 11 of RTI Act, 2005, we had sought consent of the party (Sri. Simanchal Sahoo) vide our letter dated 17.5.2023 whether to part with the information or not. In reply to our letter, Sri. Sahoo vide his letter dated 26.5.2023, has intimated us that he does not want to give his consent to part with the information. Hence, such third-party information cannot be disclosed as per sec 8(1)(j) of RTI Act,2005.
2.As replied to query No-1 such third party information cannot be disclosed as per Sec 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
3. The third-party information cannot be disclosed as per Sec8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
4. The query is not clear.
5. The third-party information cannot be disclosed as per Sec8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Page 2 of 106. The information of First Appellate Authority is provided at the end of this letter.
7. The query is not specific and clear.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 19.07.2023, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds:
"...THE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
That one Sri Simanchal Sahoo, S/O Sri Bhagaban Sahoo, Gajapati Nagar xxxx was initially engaged as Junior Assistant (Clerical Grade) in the Sanjay Memorial Institute of Technology, Ankushpur since 1989. His services were terminated with effect from 13.03.1991 on some Administrative ground.
The dispute between Sri Simanchal Sahoo Vs the Management of Sanjay Memorial Institute of Technology, Ankushpur was swayed to the Honourable High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in O.J.C. No.2424/99.
The Honourable High Court of Orissa in their order dated 25.02.1999 while disposing the Writ Petition in O.J.C. No.2424/99 observed that there shall be interim order of Stay of operation of the impugned award. The Petitioner will however offer the amount equivalent to the last pay drawn for the current subject to filling an application under section 17 (B) of the Industrial dispute Act 1947.
"Section 17 (B) Industrial Dispute Act 1947 runs thus :- Payment of full wages Workman pending proceedings in High Court.
"Where in any case Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal it's award directs re-instatement of any Workman and the employer prefers in proceedings against such award in a High Court or Supreme Court the employer shall be liable to pay such Workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the Workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an Affidavit by such Workman had been filed to that effect in such Court. Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such Workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part as the case may be.Page 3 of 10
In compliance to the orders of the Honourable High Court the Management of S.M.I.T has continued to pay equal the amount last drawn by Sri Simanchal Sahoo Workman continuously every month till 2006.
In the meantime it has come to the notice that a local News Paper of Berhampur has published in the News Paper "ANUPAMBHARAT" on 07.12.2001 that one Sri Simanchal Sahoo, S/O Sri Bhagaban Sahoo resident of Gajapati Nagar 8th Lane, Berhampur found to be a Crore Pati Agent of Life Insurance Corporation Branch Berhampur and has been facilitated by the Life Insurance Corporation organization as Sri Sahoo could be able to Execute Life Insurance Bonds of Rs.1,26,98,000/- and earned the proud of Crore Pati Agent (copy enclosed). Annexure-A However the above information came late to the undersigned Appellant till it is 2007.
The Management of Sanjay Memorial Institute of Technology continued to pay every month equal to an amount last drawn by him in accordance with the orders of Orissa High Court.
Sri Simanchal Sahoo till this day of this Appeal has supressed the facts of his engagement as LIC Agent since 1989 and claiming salary from the undersigned Appellant, President of Sanjay Memorial Institute of Technology, Berhampur although his service has been terminated with effect from 13.03.1991 and he became gainful employee and as such he is not entitled to any such claim from the Appellant President Sanjay Memorial Institute of Technology, Berhampur.
Hence the Appellant has made an application to the Public Information Officer Manager CRM/(P.S) D.M LIC of India, Berhampur Division Office, Berhampur, Ganjam 760001 to give detail service particulars of Sri Simanchal Sahoo and to intimate the rate of salary Wages, Honorarium, Commission being paid to Sri Simanchal Sahoo from 1990 to 2023 April.
The CPIO did not furnish the information on the plea that the third party information can not be provided as the third party Sri Simanchal Sahoo reportedly does not give consent to disclose it under Section 11 of the RTI Act as third party.
The 1st Appellate Authority Sri Srikanta Dora, FAA and Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Berhampur Divisional Office, Khodasingi, Berhampur, Ganjam, Pin-760010 in his date of final reply 19.07.2023 informed the Appellant Dr. Bhagaban Gantayat, President, Sanjay Memorial Institute of Technology, Hillpatana, Berhampur, Dist. Ganjam, Odisha, Pin.760005 stating that "In this matter we are to inform you that as per section 11 of RTI Act 2005 at Appeal stage we had sought consent from Sri Simanchal Sahoo whether information Page 4 of 10 can be provided as sought as per your request application vide our letter dated 27.06.2023.
In response to our letter he has communicated vide his letter dated 05.07.2023 received by us on 06.07.2023 not to disclose any of his personal information.
Hence, I uphold the decision of the CPIO and the information sought cannot be provided as per section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. Copy enclosed (Annexure B) section 11 RTI Act 2005 runs thus.
xxx 30 RIGHT TO INFORMATION LAW Regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information.
Provided that except in the case of trade of commercial secrete protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest it disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party.
xxx The information sought for from the LIC Organisation relating to Sri Simanchal Sahoo, Agent being his Agent No.03491 will be forth best for the betterment of the philanthropical Educational Institute and to submit the information to the appropriate Judicial Court in the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Berhampur and in the Supreme Court of India where the matter is sub-judice and onus lies on the appellant to prove that Sri Simanchal Sahoo is one of the gainful employee and he shall not be eligible for any further payment under section 17-B of the Industrial dispute Act 1947...."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Shri Binayak Patra present through video- conference.
Respondent: Shri G. Krishna Mohan, Manager (CRM)/ CPIO along with Shri D. P. Achary, AO (Legal) present through video-conference.
Appellant's representative while reiterating the contents of instant Appeal stated that information has been wrongly denied by the Respondent under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He prayed the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the requested information.Page 5 of 10
A written submission dated 25.11.2024 has been filed by the Respondent which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"...Submission in Second Appeal -
The points raised by the Appellant in his Second appeal are as follows: That one Simanchal Sahoo, S/o Bhagaban Sahoo, Gajapati Nagar 8th Lane, Berhampur was initially engaged as Junior Assistant (clerical grade) in Sanjaya Memorial Institute of Technology, Ankushpur since 1989. His services were terminated with effect from 13.03.1991 on some Administrative ground. The dispute was swayed to Honourable High court of Orissa, Cuttack in O.J.C.No.2424/29 and while disposing vide their order dated 25.02.1999, the court observed that there shall be interim order of Stay of operation of the impugned award. The petitioner will however offer the amount equivalent to the last pay drawn for the current subject to filling an application under section 17(B) of I.D.Act, 1947. In compliance to the orders of the Honourable court, the Management of S.M.I.T. has continued to pay equal the amount last drawn by Sri Simanchal Sahoo workman continuously every month till 2006.
The appellant also stated that, In the meantime it has come to the notice that ANUPAMBHARAT, a local newspaper on 07.12.2001 published that Sri Simanchal Sahoo found to be a Crorepati Agent of Life Insurance Corporation Branch Berhampur and the information came late till it is 2007. Hence, Sri Simanchal Sahoo till this day of appeal suppressed the facts of his engagement as LIC Agent since 1989 and claiming salary from S.M.I.T., which he is not entitled to.
The Appellant also contended that, the information regarding the status of service of Sri Simanchal Sahoo including details of service particulars and his earnings/salaries/wages/commission paid shall not come under the purview of confidential and the third party may not refuse to give his consent to disclose the information to the public in greater interest of the Institute of Sanjaya Memorial institute of Technology, the Appellant. Further it is also represented that, the information sought for from the LIC Organisation relating to Sri Simanchal Sahoo, Agent being his Agent No.03491 will be forth best for the betterment of the philanthropical Educational Institute and to submit the information to the appropriate Judicial Court in the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Berhamur and in the Supreme Court of India where the matter is sub-judice and onus lies on the appellant to prove that Sri Simanchal Sahoo is one of the gainful employee and he shall not be eligible for any further payment under section 17-8 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947.Page 6 of 10
Background of the case-
Sri Simanchal Sahoo is working as LIC Agent-Code Number 03491585 in the Berhampur Branch-1 of the respondent organization. As per the information provided by the Senior Branch Manager, Berhampur Branch-1 Office, being deemed PIO, Sri Simanchal Sahoo is appointed as LIC Agent code 03491585 on 14.05.1988 and is in force as on date.
Further, on receipt of CIC Hearing notice, a letter informing the same was sent by Regd. Post on 08.11.2024 to Sri Simanchal Sahoo, LIC Agent code 03491585, to attend the CIC hearing scheduled on 02.12.2024. One more Registered letter along with copies of grounds of appeal by the Appellant sent to Sri Simanchal Sahoo on 21.11.2024 and an E-mail was also sent on 22.11.2024 to the email-id registered in our Agency records, attaching the scanned copies of the above said documents. One Registered letter dated 21.11.2024 and an e-mail dated 22.11.2024 also sent to Sri Simanchal Sahoo, invoking Sec.11 of RTI Act, 2005., to seek his consent whether to part with the information with the Appellant or not. Reply of which is not yet received.
The Appellant has sought information which qualifies as "personal" information of Sri Simanchal Sahoo, Agency code 03491585 working in Berhampur Branch-1 under Berhampur Division.
The third party not having consented to share the information, the then CPIO & the FAA have invoked appropriate Sections and given reply as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 within prescribed time limit of 30 days, both at the Application and Appeal stage.
Further, the information sought by the Appellant regarding the service particulars, Commission paid from 1990 to 2023, is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 being personal information of third party and cannot be provided without his consent.
To substantiate the decision of this Office of Public Authority, the relevant excerpts of 1 CIC decision in the matter is reproduced herewith:
The decision dated 29.11.2022, of Hon'ble CIC in case no. CIC/LICOI/A/2021/126165 - Mrs. Nirmala Mascarenhas Vs. LIC of India- third party information sought is reproduced as under:
"The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information Page 7 of 10 regarding details of the LIC commission given to Mr. Roy Philip year wise throughout his agency period. The Commission observes that the information sought by the appellant is personal information of third party and also held by the public authority in fiduciary capacity. Further, the information sought by the appellant is commercially sensitive information, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission is satisfied with the action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI application of the appellant. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter."
In view of above clarifications to all the points raised by the Appellant, the Hon'ble CIC is requested that the second appeal preferred by Shri Bhagaban Gantayat be dismissed summarily. The copy of submission is also forwarded to the Appellant by Regd. post at his address mentioned in the Appeal ie Dr. Bhagaban Gantayat, President, Sanjaya Memorial Institute of Technology(SMIT), Hilipatana, Berhampur-760005 on 25.11.2024."
Respondent while reiterating the contents of averred written submission stated that since the information sought by the appellant pertains to personal information of the third-party, therefore, it has been denied to the appellant by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the third-party vide letter dated 26.05.2023 raised objection against divulging his personal information to the appellant.
Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, notes that the main premise of the instant Appeal was denial of information by the Respondent. In response to which, the Respondent replied that since the information sought by the Appellant pertains to personal information of third party, therefore, information being exempted from disclosure has been denied to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, after receiving objection letter from the third party vide letter dated 26.05.2023 which is taken on record.
The Commission is of considered view that the respondent has appropriately denied the information to the appellant as it contains personal information of third party which cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Page 8 of 10 same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxx
(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;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant 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 & 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, 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 Page 9 of 10 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..."
Emphasis Supplied.
Neither in the RTI application nor in the instant appeal has the Appellant brought out any overriding public interest that will be served with the disclosure of the personal information of a third-party.
Hence, no cause of action subsists in this case under the RTI Act for further adjudication.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, LIC of India, Berhampur Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Khodasingi, Berhampur, Ganjam, Odisha - 760010 Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)