Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Satya Pal Singh vs Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 14 December, 2021

Author: Saroj Punhani

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                               के   ीयसूचनाआयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                            बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No : CIC/JNUND/C/2020/125186

Satya Pal Singh                               ....िशकायतकता  /Complainant

                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम

CPIO,
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
RTI Cell, New Mehrauli Road, JNU
Ring Road, New Delhi - 110067.                         .... ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                    :   30/11/2021
Date of Decision                   :   30/11/2021

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :             Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on           :   01/07/2020
CPIO replied on                    :   18/08/2020
First appeal filed on              :   Not on record
First Appellate Authority order    :   Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated         :   24/08/2020




Information sought

:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.07.2020 seeking the following information;

1. Please provide a certified copy of the letter/order of Dr. Pramod Kumar, received by JNU from Sri Aurobindo College indicating his basic pay in 6th CPC structure on the basis of which JNU has fixed his pay as Registrar in 6th CPC pay structure.

2. Please provide a certified copy of the last pay certificate (LPC) issued by Sri Aurobindo College to Dr. Pramod Kumar at the time of joining as Registrar, JNU.

3. Please provide a certified copy of the letter/order of Dr. Pramod Kumar, received by JNU from Sri Aurobindo College 1 indicating his basic pay in 7th CPC structure on the basis of which JNU has fixed his pay as Registrar in 7th CPC pay structure.

4. Please provide a certified copy of pay fixation order along with file noting approval of competent authority regarding fixation of Dr. Pramod Kumar pay by JNU in 6th CPC.

5. Please provide a certified copy of pay fixation order along with file noting approval of competent authority regarding fixation of Dr. Pramod Kumar pay by JNU in 7th CPC.

6. Please provide a certified copy of statement showing details of basic pay, dearness allowances, transport allowances and any other allowance paid to Dr. Pramod Kumar, Registrar from date of joining in JNU to till-date.

7. Please provide a certified copy of annual increment order issued by the JNU in respect of Dr. Pramod Kumar, Registrar from date of joining in JNU to till-date.

8. Whether Dr. Pramod Kumar, Registrar is being paid transport allowances at normal or higher rates OR as per instructions of UGCIMHRD? Please provide a certified copy approval of competent authority of JNU for payment of transport allowances at that rate to Dr. Pramod Kumar.

9. Whether JNU has received any order from UGC/MHRD regarding payment of transport allowances to the Registrar and other senior officers after 1.1.2016? If yes, please provide a certified copy of that order received by the University.

10. Please provide a certified copy of the log book of the official vehicle provided to Dr. Pramod Kumar, Registrar, JNU and its monthly usage for personal work by him and family members during the last four years, along with all details of payment/recovery made by the University.

The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the complainant on 18.08.2020.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on the ground of misleading and incorrect information provided by the CPIO.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Present through audio-conference.

Respondent: Gagandeep Singh, Dy. Registrar (Admn.) & CPIO along with Naveen Yadav, Chief Security Officer & CPIO present through audio-conference.

The Complainant reiterated the contents of his instant Complaint as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.

The CPIO submitted that a timely point wise response along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Complainant.

Decision:

The Commission at the outset upon perusal of records observes that the information sought by the Complainant in the instant case including the service related records of concerned person stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, 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 &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, 3 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..."

Nonetheless, the timely reply provided by the CPIO after redacting the personal information of concerned third party is in spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.

In view of the above, no further action is warranted in the matter.

The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 4