Central Information Commission
M S Rao vs Dredging Corporation Of India Limited, ... on 30 December, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DCOIL/A/2020/689787
M S RAO ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dredging Corporation of India
Limited, RTI Cell, Dredge House,
HB Colony Main Road, Seetammadhara,
Vishakhapatnam-530022, Andhra Pradesh. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29/12/2022
Date of Decision : 29/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/07/2020
CPIO replied on : 11/08/2020
First appeal filed on : 09/09/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 13/10/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20/10/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Details of performance related pay (PRP) paid to Executives workers for DCIL in the rank of GM and above i.e., GM, CGM, Director/CVO, MD/CMD) for the last 5 years, i.e., FY 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 &2018-19 in the format.1
1. Name of the Executives:
2. Designation:
3. Date of joining:
4. Date of retirement/leaving :
5. PRP for the year:
6. Basic Pay:
7. PRP amount paid:
8. PRP amount withheld (Reasons for withholding if any):
9. Date of actual payment:
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 11.08.2020 stating as under:-
" In this connection, it is to inform that the information sought by you relates to third party. Hence, the same cannot be furnished."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.09.2020. FAA's order dated 13.10.2020 furnished a list of monthly remuneration of their employees to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Y A Sailaja, DGM (HR) & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Commission at the outset apprised the Appellant that the details of performance related pay (PRP) paid to Executives workers for DCIL in the rank of GM as sought by him impinges on the privacy of such officers and therefore, it stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act. In response to it, the Appellant raised the following arguments -
1. "...The CPIO refused to give the information vide Lr. dated 11/08/2020 on the grounds that the "information sought was relates to third party, hence, the same cannot be furnished".2
2. Upon first appeal, the FFA vide Lr. dated 13/10/2020 had enclosed copies of office orders on "Revised Scales of Pay & Revision of Gratuity" as against information what is actually paid by the company of which is irrelevant /misleading information, hence this appeal.
3. Under the RTI Act, the public authorities have the obligation to disclose the emoluments paid to their employees. under sections 4(1)(b)(x) of the Act, The remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations should be published.
4. The salary or pay (fixed or variable) has to be disclosed under Section 4 voluntarily by the Public Authority and if a member of public seeks it, it cannot be denied. Information about the salary of an employee of a public authority is not third party information. Such information has to be voluntarily disclosed under section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act..."
He further contested the fact that there are instances of pick and choose in the matter regarding disclosure of misleading PRP by the Respondent office more particularly with respect to the Appellant and his juniors which led him to the filing of instant Appeal.
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 28.12.2022 relevant extracts of which is as under -
"....PIO of DCIL replied vide his letter dated 11-08-2020 that information sought by the applicant is a third party information. Hence, the same cannot be provided. However, applicant appealed before 1st Appellate Authority on 09-09- 2020 and the same was also replied.
Aggrieved by the same, applicant approached the Information Commission by quoting Section 4(1)(b)(x) of RTI Act which deals with " the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulation."
However, the applicant has sought information about Performance Related Pay (PRP) paid to GM, CGM, Director / CVO & MD / CMD for the last 5 years which does not fall under Section 4(1)(b)(x) of RTI Act, 2005..."
Lastly, the CPIO apprised the Commission that PRP of officials of Director and above levels are made public through the annual report.
3Decision:
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission observes from a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application that the CPIO had appropriately denied the Details of performance related pay (PRP) paid to the Executives of DCIL in the rank of GM and above i.e., GM, CGM, Director/CVO, MD/CMD) to the Appellant; however, the same should have been denied quoting Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The 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, xxxx
(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 also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 4 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..."
Having observed as above, the contention raised by the Appellant regarding accessibility of third party's records from public domain being in public service is rendered inconsequential.
Thus, no relief can be ordered in the matter.
However , the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue his grievance regarding anomaly in PRP through administrative mechanism.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5